The FCC had to make a call, whether internet was advancing fast enough relative to the investments relating to subsidies being input, in addition to private investment.
State Governments have failed their duty to maintain this standard, so the *Federal* government now has to come in because of a screw up on the local level. If State governments had actually done their jobs right, we would not have needed federal intervention. They had their chance.
With the feds regulating the Internet, they will have an even greater stranglehold on communications than ever before. Small players will get squeezed out and will quit, but the big players will consolidate and there will be "ObamaNet" in it's place (for lack of a better term)... something much worse. There will be no privacy, no escape.
Personally, I want to get the hell off this planet and migrate to Mars. Start everything over.
The FCC had to make a call, whether internet was advancing fast enough relative to the investments relating to subsidies being input, in addition to private investment.
State Governments have failed their duty to maintain this standard, so the *Federal* government now has to come in because of a screw up on the local level. If State governments had actually done their jobs right, we would not have needed federal intervention. They had their chance.
You can thank the Republicans for softening the standards. The PSC of NY used to hold Verizon to a percentage of over 24 hour outages that they had to be below or get fined. The GOP changed the rules., instead of 24 hours clock time, it became 24 hours business time. The clocked stopped at 5 PM, and didn't run on weekends. A repair that took days would now fall under the 24 hours rule.
The FCC had to make a call, whether internet was advancing fast enough relative to the investments relating to subsidies being input, in addition to private investment.
State Governments have failed their duty to maintain this standard, so the *Federal* government now has to come in because of a screw up on the local level. If State governments had actually done their jobs right, we would not have needed federal intervention. They had their chance.
With the feds regulating the Internet, they will have an even greater stranglehold on communications than ever before. Small players will get squeezed out and will quit, but the big players will consolidate and there will be "ObamaNet" in it's place (for lack of a better term)... something much worse. There will be no privacy, no escape.
Personally, I want to get the hell off this planet and migrate to Mars. Start everything over.
Just to clarify, which part of "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization" don't you like? And how, exactly, is that going to squeeze out the small players? And how does that compromise privacy?
I wonder if ObamaNet will be as great as ObamaCare? Will they promise me that the price of my internet access won't increase? Will the quality of my internet access not be negatively impacted? Do I get to keep my internet provider?
These clowns can make Skynet seem all warm and fuzzy!
[I]Quote: Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post
Ugh...I hate this. It'd be easier if the moronic internet companies would behave responsibly. That being said, I don't want the government involved either.
Anyone who thinks it will improve, look at cell phone companies and tell me that government regulation helps. :rolleyes:[/I]
Question: are ALL things in the world better with corporations able to freely do anything, unfettered by anything? Or only SOME things?
If only some, and if you're trying to decide which situations would benefit from regulation, one experiment would be to ask whether phone companies would be better, or ever worse than they already are, with NO regulation?
Three options:
1. No regulation.
2. Perfect regulation.
3. Imperfect regulation.
#1 is a beautiful dream but seldom practical. A lot of money is spent to make you think it's YOUR dream.
So rather than put our heads in the sand and fight for impractical extremes, let's try to make #3 work as best we can.
P.S. I hate socialism! I just had to pull over to let some socialized fire trucks go by to save someone's life, and on top of that, I [I]only[/I] save a couple hundred dollars a month with Obamacare--using the same insurance company I always had, but now with even better benefits! Plus, previously I was the victim of a violent attack and got turned down for insurance due to my already-healed injuries. Now with Obamacare, the poor insurance companies can't do that. (It's enough to make you think "socialism" is a buzzword people use instead of thinking through complex matters )
You guys all getting excited about socialism are cracking me up. The cable companies/telecoms want to throttle your data, pick winners - basically, turn the Internet into paid cable TV. And they can do it because they are near-monopolies in most areas. This specifically doesn't even get into rates - it just aims to keep net neutrality. Apple (and Google) want this for a reason - they don't want to be a bit player in a TWC-Comcast-run Internet. They want information to flow freely on their devices and ad networks. We should want that, too.
These companies are running amok with their huge money they are donating to both parties, and this would keep them from running us all over.
Just to clarify, which part of "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization" don't you like? And how, exactly, is that going to squeeze out the small players? And how does that compromise privacy?
What part don't I like? Stagnation, decreased investments and improvements, less choice, more government intrusion... There is absolutely nothing good about it. You sign your ass over to the government, you can be sure they'll own it.
Just to clarify, which part of "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization" don't you like? And how, exactly, is that going to squeeze out the small players? And how does that compromise privacy?
What part don't I like? Stagnation, decreased investments and improvements, less choice, more government intrusion... There is absolutely nothing good about it. You sign your ass over to the government, you can be sure they'll own it.
So all stuff from your fevered imagination then. You evaded all three questions, in favor of more disconnected ranting. Reality doesn't play a big part in your world view, does it?
So all stuff from your fevered imagination then. You evaded all three questions, in favor of more disconnected ranting. Reality doesn't play a big part in your world view, does it?
Are you remotely familiar with reality? Reality dictates that the more government becomes involved the greater the cost and the lower the quality becomes. It's one thing to promise magic and fairy dust and quite another to deliver on such absurd promises. There are no free lunches!
Wow, this article has brought out all the right wing crazies. I guess they're happy being held hostage by one or two internet providers.
I don't know about any "right wing crazies" but should the FCC enact this, you'll have less choice than ever before and your bills will go up, guaranteed. Imposing arbitrary speed requirements will affect everyone via increased service costs or tax increases...or both.
What I want is for companies who ask for government subsidies to make good on their words. Something that the companies opposing the various rulings have not done, in a few cases for at least a decade.
Carriers could easily charge consumer more for faster access. If I pay extra for verizon fios 75M, then I should expect that speed. No need for Netflix to pay extra to deliver the content to me.
"The idea behind an "open" system is essentially that, for a fee, broadband providers must share the cables that carry Internet signals into people's homes.
Companies that build those lines typically oppose this sharing. A number of governments, including South Korea and Japan and several European countries, have experimented with or embraced infrastructure-sharing as a way to get new companies to compete in the broadband market.
The U.S. does not require broadband providers to share their lines, and some experts cite Korea's relative openness as one reason the Internet there is so much faster and cheaper than it is here.
The most important thing is that countries create a way for companies to enter the broadband market without having to pay for huge amounts of infrastructure.
The South Korean government has encouraged its citizens to get computers and to hook up to high-speed Internet connections by subsidizing the price of connections for low-income and traditionally unconnected people."
"Government Planning
In 1995, South Korea had only one internet user for every hundred citizens. In that year, though, their government initiated the Korean Information Infrastructure project—a 10-year program that started with laying internet infrastructure between government buildings and rolled out country-wide broadband by 1998. By the year 2000, South Korea had connected nearly 20 million of its 45 million citizens—more than Japan (pop. in 2000: 127 million) or France (62 million), and almost as many as China (1.25 billion).
Today, thanks in large part to the government’s infrastructure and education initiatives, about 84% (94% of them on broadband) of South Korea’s population has internet access. These lively markets, in turn, spark further innovation. The government’s timely and well-executed internet policies gave it a huge head start, and they are continuing to pay off. As Kyounglim Yun, Heejin Lee, and So-Hye Lim put it: “The Korean government has not only invested in the IT industry, but also promoted further investment in it.”
"government regulators who have forced more competition in the market for broadband."
Nobody wants the government spying on their internet connection, nobody wants the internet companies to have a monopoly, nobody wants internet prices to go up. But the actual real-world reality is that private companies have gained a free-market-monopoly over large countries because of infrastructure costs and are using that position to keep customers worse off by throttling certain traffic and not providing adequate connections to certain areas. Being forced by the government to share infrastructure will increase competition, making prices come down. Maybe the cost of net neutrality will require higher infrastructure costs but increased competition would counter it and it still benefits customers.
Regulating the Internet? xD have fun with that. I wanna see how somebody can regulate it xD xD xD. It's a good thing to soar in the skies, but from time to time you need to walk on the ground xD!
Yeah, just what we need; more government. Brought to you by the same folks that run social security (they are broke), Medicare (also broke), the IRS (crooked), and NSA (corrupt). Can't wait!
With the feds regulating the Internet, they will have an even greater stranglehold on communications than ever before. Small players will get squeezed out and will quit, but the big players will consolidate and there will be "ObamaNet" in it's place (for lack of a better term)... something much worse. There will be no privacy, no escape.
Personally, I want to get the hell off this planet and migrate to Mars. Start everything over.
Well you could always move somewhere else. Hmm, but it looks like most other countries have even more taxes. What are you gonna do?
Do you really think monopolies didn't exist before Obama? Do you really think this magical 'free market' where 200 guys open everything works?
There are a lot of government departments and services that should be on the chopping block and I don't represent the GOP.
I agree there. Lots of pork, corruption, legislation, etc that need to be gone.
Here's a few things I'd change that I'm sure would be the exact opposite for you.
Cut the military in half and get just as much if not more done with less. Talk about corruption, billions lost to countries that hate us, and military contractor waste...this is the first place to start. I think the newest budget had us at almost 1 trillion.
Make churches pay taxes. Done. Billions $.
Completely overhaul education, the education unions, the whole freaking thing and start fresh. invest a ton of money making quality education a national effort but with new rules. Get rid of the teachers union debacle but invest huge into the future of the country and making smart kids.
My rethought on this are a well educated country will make smarter decisions for itself thus fixing many other social ills at the same time from abortion, drugs, prison industry, smarter health decisions, hard workers, polite citizens, less guns, less death and on and on. This over time saves trillions and makes the world better for us all.
Make new laws that you can't be a politician if you were a framing lobbyist. In fact let just make lobbying illegal. Donations. Illegal. Money out of politics is the only things that will change this corruption, and the GOP with Citizen's United just made things a millions times worse.
Comments
You've just described the problem.
The FCC had to make a call, whether internet was advancing fast enough relative to the investments relating to subsidies being input, in addition to private investment.
State Governments have failed their duty to maintain this standard, so the *Federal* government now has to come in because of a screw up on the local level. If State governments had actually done their jobs right, we would not have needed federal intervention. They had their chance.
With the feds regulating the Internet, they will have an even greater stranglehold on communications than ever before. Small players will get squeezed out and will quit, but the big players will consolidate and there will be "ObamaNet" in it's place (for lack of a better term)... something much worse. There will be no privacy, no escape.
Personally, I want to get the hell off this planet and migrate to Mars. Start everything over.
You can thank the Republicans for softening the standards. The PSC of NY used to hold Verizon to a percentage of over 24 hour outages that they had to be below or get fined. The GOP changed the rules., instead of 24 hours clock time, it became 24 hours business time. The clocked stopped at 5 PM, and didn't run on weekends. A repair that took days would now fall under the 24 hours rule.
You've just described the problem.
The FCC had to make a call, whether internet was advancing fast enough relative to the investments relating to subsidies being input, in addition to private investment.
State Governments have failed their duty to maintain this standard, so the *Federal* government now has to come in because of a screw up on the local level. If State governments had actually done their jobs right, we would not have needed federal intervention. They had their chance.
With the feds regulating the Internet, they will have an even greater stranglehold on communications than ever before. Small players will get squeezed out and will quit, but the big players will consolidate and there will be "ObamaNet" in it's place (for lack of a better term)... something much worse. There will be no privacy, no escape.
Personally, I want to get the hell off this planet and migrate to Mars. Start everything over.
Just to clarify, which part of "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization" don't you like? And how, exactly, is that going to squeeze out the small players? And how does that compromise privacy?
No matter where you go, there you are.
These clowns can make Skynet seem all warm and fuzzy!
[I]Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post
Ugh...I hate this. It'd be easier if the moronic internet companies would behave responsibly. That being said, I don't want the government involved either.
Anyone who thinks it will improve, look at cell phone companies and tell me that government regulation helps. :rolleyes:[/I]
Question: are ALL things in the world better with corporations able to freely do anything, unfettered by anything? Or only SOME things?
If only some, and if you're trying to decide which situations would benefit from regulation, one experiment would be to ask whether phone companies would be better, or ever worse than they already are, with NO regulation?
Three options:
1. No regulation.
2. Perfect regulation.
3. Imperfect regulation.
#1 is a beautiful dream but seldom practical. A lot of money is spent to make you think it's YOUR dream.
#2 is impossible.
So rather than put our heads in the sand and fight for impractical extremes, let's try to make #3 work as best we can.
P.S. I hate socialism! I just had to pull over to let some socialized fire trucks go by to save someone's life, and on top of that, I [I]only[/I] save a couple hundred dollars a month with Obamacare--using the same insurance company I always had, but now with even better benefits! Plus, previously I was the victim of a violent attack and got turned down for insurance due to my already-healed injuries. Now with Obamacare, the poor insurance companies can't do that. (It's enough to make you think "socialism" is a buzzword people use instead of thinking through complex matters
Except THERE is a tabula rasa.
You guys all getting excited about socialism are cracking me up. The cable companies/telecoms want to throttle your data, pick winners - basically, turn the Internet into paid cable TV. And they can do it because they are near-monopolies in most areas. This specifically doesn't even get into rates - it just aims to keep net neutrality. Apple (and Google) want this for a reason - they don't want to be a bit player in a TWC-Comcast-run Internet. They want information to flow freely on their devices and ad networks. We should want that, too.
These companies are running amok with their huge money they are donating to both parties, and this would keep them from running us all over.
What part don't I like? Stagnation, decreased investments and improvements, less choice, more government intrusion... There is absolutely nothing good about it. You sign your ass over to the government, you can be sure they'll own it.
So all stuff from your fevered imagination then. You evaded all three questions, in favor of more disconnected ranting. Reality doesn't play a big part in your world view, does it?
Are you remotely familiar with reality? Reality dictates that the more government becomes involved the greater the cost and the lower the quality becomes. It's one thing to promise magic and fairy dust and quite another to deliver on such absurd promises. There are no free lunches!
I don't know about any "right wing crazies" but should the FCC enact this, you'll have less choice than ever before and your bills will go up, guaranteed. Imposing arbitrary speed requirements will affect everyone via increased service costs or tax increases...or both.
On the plus side, he's there. We can all stay here and it solves both our problems.
Whose reality? South Korea has the world's fastest internet specifically because of government involvement:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/31/broadband.south.korea/
"The idea behind an "open" system is essentially that, for a fee, broadband providers must share the cables that carry Internet signals into people's homes.
Companies that build those lines typically oppose this sharing. A number of governments, including South Korea and Japan and several European countries, have experimented with or embraced infrastructure-sharing as a way to get new companies to compete in the broadband market.
The U.S. does not require broadband providers to share their lines, and some experts cite Korea's relative openness as one reason the Internet there is so much faster and cheaper than it is here.
The most important thing is that countries create a way for companies to enter the broadband market without having to pay for huge amounts of infrastructure.
The South Korean government has encouraged its citizens to get computers and to hook up to high-speed Internet connections by subsidizing the price of connections for low-income and traditionally unconnected people."
http://www.idgconnect.com/abstract/8960/why-does-south-korea-have-fastest-internet
"Government Planning
In 1995, South Korea had only one internet user for every hundred citizens. In that year, though, their government initiated the Korean Information Infrastructure project—a 10-year program that started with laying internet infrastructure between government buildings and rolled out country-wide broadband by 1998. By the year 2000, South Korea had connected nearly 20 million of its 45 million citizens—more than Japan (pop. in 2000: 127 million) or France (62 million), and almost as many as China (1.25 billion).
Today, thanks in large part to the government’s infrastructure and education initiatives, about 84% (94% of them on broadband) of South Korea’s population has internet access. These lively markets, in turn, spark further innovation. The government’s timely and well-executed internet policies gave it a huge head start, and they are continuing to pay off. As Kyounglim Yun, Heejin Lee, and So-Hye Lim put it: “The Korean government has not only invested in the IT industry, but also promoted further investment in it.”
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/
"government regulators who have forced more competition in the market for broadband."
Nobody wants the government spying on their internet connection, nobody wants the internet companies to have a monopoly, nobody wants internet prices to go up. But the actual real-world reality is that private companies have gained a free-market-monopoly over large countries because of infrastructure costs and are using that position to keep customers worse off by throttling certain traffic and not providing adequate connections to certain areas. Being forced by the government to share infrastructure will increase competition, making prices come down. Maybe the cost of net neutrality will require higher infrastructure costs but increased competition would counter it and it still benefits customers.
With the feds regulating the Internet, they will have an even greater stranglehold on communications than ever before. Small players will get squeezed out and will quit, but the big players will consolidate and there will be "ObamaNet" in it's place (for lack of a better term)... something much worse. There will be no privacy, no escape.
Personally, I want to get the hell off this planet and migrate to Mars. Start everything over.
Well you could always move somewhere else. Hmm, but it looks like most other countries have even more taxes. What are you gonna do?
Do you really think monopolies didn't exist before Obama? Do you really think this magical 'free market' where 200 guys open everything works?
There are a lot of government departments and services that should be on the chopping block and I don't represent the GOP.
I agree there. Lots of pork, corruption, legislation, etc that need to be gone.
Here's a few things I'd change that I'm sure would be the exact opposite for you.
Cut the military in half and get just as much if not more done with less. Talk about corruption, billions lost to countries that hate us, and military contractor waste...this is the first place to start. I think the newest budget had us at almost 1 trillion.
Make churches pay taxes. Done. Billions $.
Completely overhaul education, the education unions, the whole freaking thing and start fresh. invest a ton of money making quality education a national effort but with new rules. Get rid of the teachers union debacle but invest huge into the future of the country and making smart kids.
My rethought on this are a well educated country will make smarter decisions for itself thus fixing many other social ills at the same time from abortion, drugs, prison industry, smarter health decisions, hard workers, polite citizens, less guns, less death and on and on. This over time saves trillions and makes the world better for us all.
Make new laws that you can't be a politician if you were a framing lobbyist. In fact let just make lobbying illegal. Donations. Illegal. Money out of politics is the only things that will change this corruption, and the GOP with Citizen's United just made things a millions times worse.
I guess this post is kinda rambling but whatever.
Minimum latency will be 440ms. It’s not for gamers, at least.
Brought out some crazies, all right…