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.
"you'll have less choice than ever before"
Most people have 1 maybe 2 internet providers available to them, so not sure this could get worse.
"your bills will go up, guaranteed."
based on what?
"Imposing arbitrary speed requirements will affect everyone via increased service costs or tax increases...or both."
The speed requirement is in order to be called 'broadband'. It doesn't mean ISPs can't offer slower speeds, they just can't label these 'broadband'.
Do I like socialism? This is a ridiculous question. Verizon was the lead plaintiff and argued that the internet was not a utility because it was packet switched data. Verizon's ancestor, AT&T, installed its first packet switch (ESS2) in Seakonk, New Jersey in 1965, and by the mid-70's the entire phone system was a packet switched network (OK, maybe not parts of rural Alabama). Most of the network protocols were originally developed for packet switched networks in telephony (as was UNIX). The fact that lawyers are ignorant and this argument even got heard is a disgrace.
So, you would prefer no regulation as that might be the thin edge of the wedge for socialism. Grow up, the same pharmaceutical companies that whine about FDA regulation, use the FDA to keep products *they made* and shipped to foreign countries from *returning* and being sold at a lower price (and there is a whole conversation about why they sell it cheaper abroad). Clean food regulations date back 125 years, because they are so obviously necessary, vis China today.
I can put this in terms you might understand "what does it profit a man to have riches beyond compare, if he can't breathe the air, drink the water, or eat the food?". Or just read King Midas, I mean, it's neither a new nor a difficult idea.
You should use specific objections like regulation may reduce investment in switching equipment and therefore speed/reliability/availability rather than spout terms you don't understand. Communism is well and truly dead, but was predeceased by pure capitalism a century before. The four depressions, that's right depressions, of the 19th century led to curbing pure capitalism by the beginning of the 20th century, in the US and Europe. The depression in the 20th century finished it off. We went 70 years without another depression and only came close when the Bush administration removed controls on banks, leading to the Great Recession. The Great Recession missed being a depression only because of Keynesian policies by the Obama administration (are you listening Hoover?).
Face it, there is only socialism, we are just haggling over how much, Scandinavian or American? Are you advocating the return of the robber barons, patent medicines, and The Jungle? Not me, I don't need rodent excrementa in my food, you can do what you want.
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!
Certainly more familiar than you are, based on the large fraction of your posts these days that are simply ignorant rants against government in general, and the current one in particular. Where do you get this nonsense from? "Reality dictates..."? Really? And which "promises" are you referring to here? Unless you have some actual arguments to make then the only thing dictating around here is your inability to see past your own ideological dogma. And you still didn't answer the questions.
Certainly more familiar than you are, based on the large fraction of your posts these days that are simply ignorant rants against government in general, and the current one in particular. Where do you get this nonsense from? "Reality dictates..."? Really? And which "promises" are you referring to here? Unless you have some actual arguments to make then the only thing dictating around here is your inability to see past your own ideological dogma. And you still didn't answer the questions.
Certainly more familiar than you are, based on the large fraction of your posts these days that are simply ignorant rants against government in general, and the current one in particular. Where do you get this nonsense from? "Reality dictates..."? Really? And which "promises" are you referring to here? Unless you have some actual arguments to make then the only thing dictating around here is your inability to see past your own ideological dogma. And you still didn't answer the questions.
No it doesn't. If they offered different sites at different speeds, that would violate net neutrality.
And this is precisely why this won't work. If this is implemented, and suddenly millions of sites decide to take advantage of offering large streaming video files because throttling traffic is no longer allowed, what do you think will be the result?
No it doesn't. If they offered different sites at different speeds, that would violate net neutrality.
And this is precisely why this won't work. If this is implemented, and suddenly millions of sites decide to take advantage of offering large streaming video files because throttling traffic is no longer allowed, what do you think will be the result?
The point is not to prevent throttling, but to prevent source-dependent throttling.
The point is not to prevent throttling, but to prevent source-dependent throttling.
Please clarify.
Come on - you know perfectly well what the issue is. The principle of net neutrality is that the ISPs and Tier 1 networks cannot discriminate traffic (different priority and speed) according to its source or content. Presumably, if, for example, as a customer you pay for a 100 Mb/s download connection, you would prefer that your ISP did not vary its actual allowed data rate to you according to the source, prioritizing those companies that were willing to pay them a premium. And we are not talking about the originating source upload connection speed, which clearly has tiered service levels, we are talking about Tier 1 transmission and the delivery ISP end of the pipe.
I have to assume the couple of people in here shouting the loudest against this are astroturfing. Possible paid shills for the Heritage Foundation or Koch brothers. They can't be this obtuse.
Pathetic. No real arguments or evidence, just lame one-liners.
So no evidence.
Good to know you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, again, as I said before.
Oh, by the way, the electric company that serves me? You know, the SINGLE electric company that I can’t choose, can’t move from, and whose rates I am forced to pay if I want electricity at all? The one that isn’t available to my neighbors across the street, who have their own SINGLE electric company that they can’t choose, can’t move from, and whose different rate they’re forced to pay if they want electricity at all?
They say hi and thank you for supporting their cause. There was some laughing, too, but that went on for a while.
Good to know you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, again, as I said before.
Oh, by the way, the electric company that serves me? You know, the SINGLE electric company that I can’t choose, can’t move from, and whose rates I am forced to pay if I want electricity at all? The one that isn’t available to my neighbors across the street, who have their own SINGLE electric company that they can’t choose, can’t move from, and whose different rate they’re forced to pay if they want electricity at all?
They say hi and thank you for supporting their cause. There was some laughing, too, but that went on for a while.
The whole point in changing the definition of 'Broadband' is to encourage the faster speeds, and the arguments made by the ISPs against the change is that consumers don't need more bandwidth.
Oh by the way, you can start your own electric company. So tell your neighbors.
Comments
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.
"you'll have less choice than ever before"
Most people have 1 maybe 2 internet providers available to them, so not sure this could get worse.
"your bills will go up, guaranteed."
based on what?
"Imposing arbitrary speed requirements will affect everyone via increased service costs or tax increases...or both."
The speed requirement is in order to be called 'broadband'. It doesn't mean ISPs can't offer slower speeds, they just can't label these 'broadband'.
Really? And you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor too!
This is a ridiculous question. Verizon was the lead plaintiff and argued that the internet was not a utility because it was packet switched data. Verizon's ancestor, AT&T, installed its first packet switch (ESS2) in Seakonk, New Jersey in 1965, and by the mid-70's the entire phone system was a packet switched network (OK, maybe not parts of rural Alabama). Most of the network protocols were originally developed for packet switched networks in telephony (as was UNIX). The fact that lawyers are ignorant and this argument even got heard is a disgrace.
So, you would prefer no regulation as that might be the thin edge of the wedge for socialism. Grow up, the same pharmaceutical companies that whine about FDA regulation, use the FDA to keep products *they made* and shipped to foreign countries from *returning* and being sold at a lower price (and there is a whole conversation about why they sell it cheaper abroad). Clean food regulations date back 125 years, because they are so obviously necessary, vis China today.
I can put this in terms you might understand "what does it profit a man to have riches beyond compare, if he can't breathe the air, drink the water, or eat the food?". Or just read King Midas, I mean, it's neither a new nor a difficult idea.
You should use specific objections like regulation may reduce investment in switching equipment and therefore speed/reliability/availability rather than spout terms you don't understand. Communism is well and truly dead, but was predeceased by pure capitalism a century before. The four depressions, that's right depressions, of the 19th century led to curbing pure capitalism by the beginning of the 20th century, in the US and Europe. The depression in the 20th century finished it off. We went 70 years without another depression and only came close when the Bush administration removed controls on banks, leading to the Great Recession. The Great Recession missed being a depression only because of Keynesian policies by the Obama administration (are you listening Hoover?).
Face it, there is only socialism, we are just haggling over how much, Scandinavian or American? Are you advocating the return of the robber barons, patent medicines, and The Jungle? Not me, I don't need rodent excrementa in my food, you can do what you want.
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!
Certainly more familiar than you are, based on the large fraction of your posts these days that are simply ignorant rants against government in general, and the current one in particular. Where do you get this nonsense from? "Reality dictates..."? Really? And which "promises" are you referring to here? Unless you have some actual arguments to make then the only thing dictating around here is your inability to see past your own ideological dogma. And you still didn't answer the questions.
Most cable internet services offer customers different speeds at different prices. Does that violate net neutrality?
Most cable internet services offer customers different speeds at different prices. Does that violate net neutrality?
No it doesn't. If they offered different sites at different speeds, that would violate net neutrality.
You didn't address the issue again.
Certainly more familiar than you are, based on the large fraction of your posts these days that are simply ignorant rants against government in general, and the current one in particular. Where do you get this nonsense from? "Reality dictates..."? Really? And which "promises" are you referring to here? Unless you have some actual arguments to make then the only thing dictating around here is your inability to see past your own ideological dogma. And you still didn't answer the questions.
You didn't address the issue again.
Which issue?
And this is precisely why this won't work. If this is implemented, and suddenly millions of sites decide to take advantage of offering large streaming video files because throttling traffic is no longer allowed, what do you think will be the result?
No future choice, ever, at any time, for any reason, and no faster speeds or cheaper rates made available.
Common sense, reason, logic, all history involving regulation of this nature…
And it does absolutely nothing. They’ll remove a word from their advertising and do zilch to change anything.
No it doesn't. If they offered different sites at different speeds, that would violate net neutrality.
And this is precisely why this won't work. If this is implemented, and suddenly millions of sites decide to take advantage of offering large streaming video files because throttling traffic is no longer allowed, what do you think will be the result?
The point is not to prevent throttling, but to prevent source-dependent throttling.
Please clarify.
The point is not to prevent throttling, but to prevent source-dependent throttling.
Please clarify.
Come on - you know perfectly well what the issue is. The principle of net neutrality is that the ISPs and Tier 1 networks cannot discriminate traffic (different priority and speed) according to its source or content. Presumably, if, for example, as a customer you pay for a 100 Mb/s download connection, you would prefer that your ISP did not vary its actual allowed data rate to you according to the source, prioritizing those companies that were willing to pay them a premium. And we are not talking about the originating source upload connection speed, which clearly has tiered service levels, we are talking about Tier 1 transmission and the delivery ISP end of the pipe.
No future choice, ever, at any time, for any reason, and no faster speeds or cheaper rates made available.
This is how it is right now. Municipalities will be allowed to deploy their own network to offer choice and promote competition.
Quote:
Common sense, reason, logic, all history involving regulation of this nature…
And it does absolutely nothing. They’ll remove a word from their advertising and do zilch to change anything.
The point is they won't be able to call it broadband, which will encourage them to offer at least 25mbs.
I have to assume the couple of people in here shouting the loudest against this are astroturfing. Possible paid shills for the Heritage Foundation or Koch brothers. They can't be this obtuse.
The Future Is Now!™
I don’t have to prove to you why the sky is blue. You just get to be called a moron for contesting it.
If you want to discuss a topic, have any amount of knowledge on it whatsoever beforehand, please.
In what universe is that the case?
The Future Is Now!™
I don’t have to prove to you why the sky is blue. You just get to be called a moron for contesting it.
If you want to discuss a topic, have any amount of knowledge on it whatsoever beforehand, please.
In what universe is that the case?
Pathetic. No real arguments or evidence, just lame one-liners. I feel like I'm talking to Sarah Palin.
So no evidence.
Good to know you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, again, as I said before.
Oh, by the way, the electric company that serves me? You know, the SINGLE electric company that I can’t choose, can’t move from, and whose rates I am forced to pay if I want electricity at all? The one that isn’t available to my neighbors across the street, who have their own SINGLE electric company that they can’t choose, can’t move from, and whose different rate they’re forced to pay if they want electricity at all?
They say hi and thank you for supporting their cause. There was some laughing, too, but that went on for a while.
So no evidence.
Good to know you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, again, as I said before.
Oh, by the way, the electric company that serves me? You know, the SINGLE electric company that I can’t choose, can’t move from, and whose rates I am forced to pay if I want electricity at all? The one that isn’t available to my neighbors across the street, who have their own SINGLE electric company that they can’t choose, can’t move from, and whose different rate they’re forced to pay if they want electricity at all?
They say hi and thank you for supporting their cause. There was some laughing, too, but that went on for a while.
The whole point in changing the definition of 'Broadband' is to encourage the faster speeds, and the arguments made by the ISPs against the change is that consumers don't need more bandwidth.
Oh by the way, you can start your own electric company. So tell your neighbors.
Except the ISPs don’t care, so the change is meaningless.
When you get near an argument, hop on.