Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
You and many others on this site don’t seem to understand the true implications of this change. ISPs could charge the consumer more in regions where they hold a monopoly, but most likely wouldn’t in competitive markets. In reality ISPs will charge the Netflix, YouTube, Apple and Amazons of the world. In turn, these companies will pass costs on to the consumer over time, an ISP Trojan Horse. If there’s no direct accountability, why would an ISP not charge more to these companies? Truely consider that statement, ISPs can create new revenue streams in perpetuity without oversight or becoming the bad guy. Think you hate how cable companies bundle channels now, apply that concept to internet accessibility....
Alternatively, an ISP could block/slow any content competing with their own, or accelerate their own content free of charge while leaving competitors at subpar speed.
The problem here is that we lose protections from the wizards behind the proverbial curtain. I for one don’t trust a single ISP, maybe Apple’s satellite initiative will save us all.
In areas where only 1 provider has invested the capital to provide services, why should they not take advantage and hike the prices? If the price is so high, a competitor will see an opportunity to invest and sell at a lower price yet still profit, driving prices down again. This is the type of thing that is celebrated in America I thought, anything that aids the consumer and is anti-monopolistic was just reserved for us crazy Europeans who are all anti-big business.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
You and many others on this site don’t seem to understand the true implications of this change. ISPs could charge the consumer more in regions where they hold a monopoly, but most likely wouldn’t in competitive markets. In reality ISPs will charge the Netflix, YouTube, Apple and Amazons of the world. In turn, these companies will pass costs on to the consumer over time, an ISP Trojan Horse. If there’s no direct accountability, why would an ISP not charge more to these companies? Truely consider that statement, ISPs can create new revenue streams in perpetuity without oversight or becoming the bad guy. Think you hate how cable companies bundle channels now, apply that concept to internet accessibility....
Alternatively, an ISP could block/slow any content competing with their own, or accelerate their own content free of charge while leaving competitors at subpar speed.
The problem here is that we lose protections from the wizards behind the proverbial curtain. I for one don’t trust a single ISP, maybe Apple’s satellite initiative will save us all.
In areas where only 1 provider has invested the capital to provide services, why should they not take advantage and hike the prices? If the price is so high, a competitor will see an opportunity to invest and sell at a lower price yet still profit, driving prices down again. This is the type of thing that is celebrated in America I thought, anything that aids the consumer and is anti-monopolistic was just reserved for us crazy Europeans who are all anti-big business.
Right... They got the god damn monopoly from the fracking gov buddy. You know airwaves and roads and ground are not theirs don't you?
The government allowed them to put their shit into the ground and put in towers with some expectation and obligations. That's not a license to print money. Got that.
The local government doesn't want to have 5 different companies ripping their pavement away, or building 50 cell towers because this is highly disruptive and that's why the damn companies had to follow some rules and regulations in the first place when they came in.
Now, they're all like, no, no, no, we just want to screw you and we will use the power of a higher government (paid with much money) to do so.
Barriers to entry in capitals (and just getting permits because of lobbying by those Pai's puppetmasters) and the fact it can take decades to recoup costs in the most lucrative areas and that recuperation would be even slower if there are more people in the market (let alone the marginal areas) means that even if competition occurred, it would mostly happen in the places were there already a decent offer the biggest urban centers and not most of the US. (that is about 35-40% of the US). Those have the highest and most varied demographics allowing to enter with a product/service that the current telecoms don't want to offer (or can't) and still make money.
One thing that you also forget is that the company that has already mostly paid their publicly subsidized infrastructure (because that's what those telecoms have ), killing a new entrant is really easy. You wait till they've committed a lot of capital and then just push the price back down for a few years and starve them. Only a company with a very good cash flow can sustain this kind of bleeding. During this whole time, the telecom keeps on doing good money.
Considering the reason most of the market has only one entrant is that those markets can't really support more, the telecom that have already paid their subpar infrastructure can keep other players out simply by making those areas unprofitable for any new entrants on a whim.
Monopolies, unless the federal government assists are very hard to break through.
You seem to have no clues about simple economics or monopolies beyond slogans.
Whether you agree or disagree with Pai's plans for dumping the Net Neutrality initiative, or even if you have no idea what all the fuss is about in the first place, this article is well worth the time to read if for no other reason than to understand some of the unease and arguments against the FCC plan. https://www.androidcentral.com/net-neutrality
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
...us crazy Europeans who are all anti-big business.
Anti-business in general, it seems. Now that USB-C exists in the wild, it will take another three years (or more) for the EU to change its law forcing manufacturers to include a Micro-USB port on their phones. And by that time, will we be talking about USB-D? Talk about ‘driving innovation’; politically-enforced monopolies are just as (read: more) harmful than economically-orchestrated ones.
You know airwaves and roads and ground are not theirs don't you?
Ooh! Important question: Whose are they, then?
The government allowed them to put their shit into the ground and put in towers with some expectation and obligations. That's not a license to print money. Got that.
Please explain the ways in which the United States government is allowed to restrict the earning of currency–and the extent thereto.
One thing that you also forget is that the company that has already mostly paid their publicly subsidized infrastructure (because that's what those telecoms have ), killing a new entrant is really easy. You wait till they've committed a lot of capital and then just push the price back down for a few years and starve them. Only a company with a very good cash flow can sustain this kind of bleeding. During this whole time, the telecom keeps on doing good money.
Thanks, government, for allowing that! Boy, you sure are looking out for the consumer, government! I definitely want to entrust THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ITSELF to you!
...the reason most of the market has only one entrant is that those markets can't really support more…
That’s completely nuts.
…the telecom that have already paid their subpar infrastructure can keep other players out simply by making those areas unprofitable for any new entrants on a whim.
Company: Hey, we see that Sample City has shit Internet access and a single ISP. We’d like to lay fiber optic cable there and start competing. Government: *muffled whispering in the background* Mmm… nah. Company: What’s that? Government: Well, there’re just so many regulations and, uh, local ordinances that this just isn’t going to work out. *more whispering* In fact, we’re not accepting any new infrastructure buildouts at this time in this location.
Company: Hey, we see that Sample City has shit Internet access and a single ISP. We’d like to lay fiber optic cable there and start competing.
Government: *muffled whispering in the background* Mmm… nah. Company: What’s that? Government: Well, there’re just so many regulations and, uh, local ordinances that this just isn’t going to work out. *more whispering* In fact, we’re not accepting any new infrastructure buildouts at this time in this location.
Maybe, maybe not, but the same crony capitalists who whisper in local government ears are the ones opposing net neutrality. Whispering in the Republican party ears.
Both you and Spam think you are defending capitalists by defending crony capitalism. Meanwhile the "pure" capitalists (although nothing is pure of course) like startups, content providers, most of silicon valley are in favour of net neutrality.
I dont even understand those arguments, to be honest. I think it is more of a tribal pro Republican position than anything else.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
There's no "right" to electricity either. Would you rather that had no consumer protections?
You're correct. There is no "right" to electricity. In fact, there are better options than centralized, state-owned or controlled electricity. "Smart grids" that allow people to buy electricity from any number of providers would bring competition to consumers and drive down costs.
I don’t think you get the idea here. No one is saying that everyone has to be willing to pay for it. It’s not at the point that everything is being given for free. What’s being said, and I’ve said it now several times, that ACCESS to these services should be required. So major airlines are required to service smaller routes that aren’t profitable. That way people in smaller population centers have ACCESS to that service. The same thing for telephone service for a century. We have the same thing for highways, and electricity, and clean water.
what you guys just don’t get, is that this is good for everyone. We can look at some countries where certain areas aren’t served, and it’s a major problem. Everyone needs to feel as thought they’re being treated equally. You can’t be in pure greed mode all of the time.
but the same crony capitalists who whisper in local government ears are the ones opposing net neutrality.
Oh, gee, sounds like you recognize what THE ACTUAL PROBLEM is, then. Why not combat that instead of the constitutional rule of law?
Both you and Spam think you are defending capitalists by defending crony capitalism.
You’d be surprised how little of that I defend for being right-wing, given that you’ve (plural you) been propagandized to think that “right-wing” means “left wing from 40 years ago.”
Meanwhile the "pure" capitalists (although nothing is pure of course) like startups, content providers, most of silicon valley are in favour of net neutrality.
In no way are Silicon Valley or the content providers “pure” capitalists. Holy fucking shit. They’re the lobbyists.
I dont even understand those arguments, to be honest.
Show me where in the Constitution the government has the power to do what you want it to do.
Apples lobbying is historically tiny. That’s true of most of Silicon Valley. That’s because they didn’t really need government in the early days. The carriers and ISPs needed to lobby government, local and national, from the beginning - and spent hundreds of millions on it. In fact they can’t really exist without government, since they need licenses (and there needs to be licensing of bandwidth). They are the very definition of crony capitalism.
like all crony capitalist enterprises there’s not just lobbying but a nexus of people who segue between the crony capitalist enterprise and the government and back again, the chair of the FCC is no exception.
Meanwhile the purer, but not pure, free market enterprises in Silicon Valley haven’t got their act together on lobbying. It’s not enough to protest, or have meetings, you need to throw the money around.
If they do I suppose the ideology of the Republican Party will change and maybe it’s supporters will have a change of heart too - since whatever the opposition to net neutrality is it isn’t a free market position.
Relative to their industry, indeed. They’ve been picking it up in the last few years.
That’s true of most of Silicon Valley. Meanwhile the purer, but not pure, free market enterprises in Silicon Valley haven’t got their act together on lobbying.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
There’s no such thing as a “free road”. You’re paying for it with your taxes or you’re paying for it via tolls.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
There's no "right" to electricity either. Would you rather that had no consumer protections?
You're correct. There is no "right" to electricity. In fact, there are better options than centralized, state-owned or controlled electricity. "Smart grids" that allow people to buy electricity from any number of providers would bring competition to consumers and drive down costs.
I don’t think you get the idea here. No one is saying that everyone has to be willing to pay for it. It’s not at the point that everything is being given for free. What’s being said, and I’ve said it now several times, that ACCESS to these services should be required. So major airlines are required to service smaller routes that aren’t profitable. That way people in smaller population centers have ACCESS to that service. The same thing for telephone service for a century. We have the same thing for highways, and electricity, and clean water.
what you guys just don’t get, is that this is good for everyone. We can look at some countries where certain areas aren’t served, and it’s a major problem. Everyone needs to feel as thought they’re being treated equally. You can’t be in pure greed mode all of the time.
Mel, I understand your thinking on this and simply disagree with nearly all of it. It is the Federal government’s job to set the playing field for businesses to compete. It’s not their job to play the part of nursemaid to every special interest or scold to businesses which are better run and able to better compete against their competition. I think Ajit Pai is still playing too safe and he needs to radically downscale the FCC.
People cannot and should not be promised landline based Internet access in every backwoods area of the country. It’s absolutely NOT the function of the Feds to do this. Many people access the Internet over their cell phones and in the future people may choose Elon Musk’s satellite-based service. When and where it makes economic sense, businesses will pursue new customers in inaccessible locations and they’ll probably continue to pay a premium for that access for some time. That’s the way it works! People who absolutely must have fast and plentiful internet options will move to the cities which offer it.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
There’s no such thing as a “free road”. You’re paying for it with your taxes or you’re paying for it via tolls.
That’s semantics. However you didn’t deal with the main case I made - that private capital wouldn’t have built the freeway system to begin with.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
There's no "right" to electricity either. Would you rather that had no consumer protections?
You're correct. There is no "right" to electricity. In fact, there are better options than centralized, state-owned or controlled electricity. "Smart grids" that allow people to buy electricity from any number of providers would bring competition to consumers and drive down costs.
I don’t think you get the idea here. No one is saying that everyone has to be willing to pay for it. It’s not at the point that everything is being given for free. What’s being said, and I’ve said it now several times, that ACCESS to these services should be required. So major airlines are required to service smaller routes that aren’t profitable. That way people in smaller population centers have ACCESS to that service. The same thing for telephone service for a century. We have the same thing for highways, and electricity, and clean water.
what you guys just don’t get, is that this is good for everyone. We can look at some countries where certain areas aren’t served, and it’s a major problem. Everyone needs to feel as thought they’re being treated equally. You can’t be in pure greed mode all of the time.
Mel, I understand your thinking on this and simply disagree with nearly all of it. It is the Federal government’s job to set the playing field for businesses to compete. It’s not their job to play the part of nursemaid to every special interest or scold to businesses which are better run and able to better compete against their competition. I think Ajit Pai is still playing too safe and he needs to radically downscale the FCC.
People cannot and should not be promised landline based Internet access in every backwoods area of the country. It’s absolutely NOT the function of the Feds to do this. Many people access the Internet over their cell phones and in the future people may choose Elon Musk’s satellite-based service. When and where it makes economic sense, businesses will pursue new customers in inaccessible locations and they’ll probably continue to pay a premium for that access for some time. That’s the way it works! People who absolutely must have fast and plentiful internet options will move to the cities which offer it.
Quite right, but what do you think about net neutrality?
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
There’s no such thing as a “free road”. You’re paying for it with your taxes or you’re paying for it via tolls.
That’s semantics. However you didn’t deal with the main case I made - that private capital wouldn’t have built the freeway system to begin with.
There’s no way of proving that either way. Plenty of companies have turned parking lots into profitable businesses, perhaps an entrepreneur(s) would’ve eventually made a business case for interstate toll roads. Who can say with any certainty? However, the Federal government having managed to double the national debt under the prior administration is a good argument against continuing to misspend public tax dollars for all kinds of things that are mistakenly thought of as critical.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
There's no "right" to electricity either. Would you rather that had no consumer protections?
You're correct. There is no "right" to electricity. In fact, there are better options than centralized, state-owned or controlled electricity. "Smart grids" that allow people to buy electricity from any number of providers would bring competition to consumers and drive down costs.
I don’t think you get the idea here. No one is saying that everyone has to be willing to pay for it. It’s not at the point that everything is being given for free. What’s being said, and I’ve said it now several times, that ACCESS to these services should be required. So major airlines are required to service smaller routes that aren’t profitable. That way people in smaller population centers have ACCESS to that service. The same thing for telephone service for a century. We have the same thing for highways, and electricity, and clean water.
what you guys just don’t get, is that this is good for everyone. We can look at some countries where certain areas aren’t served, and it’s a major problem. Everyone needs to feel as thought they’re being treated equally. You can’t be in pure greed mode all of the time.
Mel, I understand your thinking on this and simply disagree with nearly all of it. It is the Federal government’s job to set the playing field for businesses to compete. It’s not their job to play the part of nursemaid to every special interest or scold to businesses which are better run and able to better compete against their competition. I think Ajit Pai is still playing too safe and he needs to radically downscale the FCC.
People cannot and should not be promised landline based Internet access in every backwoods area of the country. It’s absolutely NOT the function of the Feds to do this. Many people access the Internet over their cell phones and in the future people may choose Elon Musk’s satellite-based service. When and where it makes economic sense, businesses will pursue new customers in inaccessible locations and they’ll probably continue to pay a premium for that access for some time. That’s the way it works! People who absolutely must have fast and plentiful internet options will move to the cities which offer it.
Quite right, but what do you think about net neutrality?
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
What if, theoretically possible, maybe, could, might, possibility. Blathering nonsense. Net neutrality is an Obama era invention. How did we ever get along all these years without it? Before net neutrality was AI ever blocked by some Windows person at a carrier? It didn’t happen before the government’s power grab and it won’t happen after either even though it is ‘theoretically’ possible. Labeling Internet service as a utility no different than natural gas or electricity so the government could control it was a mistake and I’m happy it’s going away.
The only restrictions I remember from the days before net neutrality was that websites told me to go away because I was a Mac user and wasn’t running IE as by browser. The government didn’t fix that, competition and innovation did.
The Need grew from President Obama actually paying attention to what was happening already. The were ISPs who were starting to selectively throttle certain sites and creating the mentioned fast lanes. That would mean that if you were unfortunate enough to live in area that only had this service provider and keep in mind some require contracts to get reasonable pricing, if AI didn’t or couldn’t afford to pay them what they demand, a video feed from this site would be brought down to dialup speeds, even though you pay a significant fee for that service. They could also do so to force you to pay for their additional services.
The rules put in place protected you from this happening wide scale. Obama recognized that this industry follows the leader. If One tries something shady and gets away with it, it because a standard.
SpamSandwich said: People make a choice to live in less population dense areas. Making such a choice results in less access to services which can be provided more practically and at a lower cost in the higher density cities. That’s how it should be. Economics in action. Greater demand drives competition to supply the demand. Less demand in the boonies means higher cost.
This is often not true. I live in the LA metropolitan area and have only a single choice for broadband and cable TV. The reason is that the cable company entered into a multi-decade contract with my relatively small city in the middle of LA county for exclusive rights to provide those services. Even if another huge provider wanted to run their own cable down my street they would be prohibited by the fact that the city owns the greenway space where the cables are run and they are bound by the contract.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
I suppose you could say the same about clean air and water. Yes? Or the law against murder. I’d say society can be measured by what it deems basic rights of its citizenry. Access to clean air, clean water, equal access to employment, to justice, to protection under the law, access without prejudice or privilege to basic services like electricity, water, sewer, and internet/education are rights government should protect, not turn a blind eye to.
There are laws against murder and anyone can clearly see they are ineffective against a person (or persons) who are intent on carrying out such a plan.
The constitutionally protected rights the US Federal government legally observes are rather specific and narrow. It would be unwise to cede control over Internet access to the Federal government, lest that government eventually become hostile to whatever your or my particular views are.
And if the people of the US want their representatives to amend the Constitution to consider "access to information" a constitutionally protected right, then such a thing could be possible. I think it's both absurd and unlikely, but possible. I align with the point of view that products and services are not a "right" and never should be considered so. Forcing others to provide services or products to others amounts to state-sanctioned slavery.
That certainly helps explain your attitude towards the government providing services paid for thru taxes. Fortunately neither our policing agencies, military, nor highway system has yet been privatized to move those services out of government oversight.
Also, what is it about a Federal highway system that makes you think it is better than whatever the private market could provide? You should read some L. Neil Smith sometime.
so if we read what you read we will be convinced? This is a logical fallacy - appeal to the kind of authority that convinces me.
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
There’s no such thing as a “free road”. You’re paying for it with your taxes or you’re paying for it via tolls.
That’s semantics. However you didn’t deal with the main case I made - that private capital wouldn’t have built the freeway system to begin with.
There’s no way of proving that either way. Plenty of companies have turned parking lots into profitable businesses, perhaps an entrepreneur(s) would’ve eventually made a business case for interstate toll roads. Who can say with any certainty? However, the Federal government having managed to double the national debt under the prior administration is a good argument against continuing to misspend public tax dollars for all kinds of things that are mistakenly thought of as critical.
I think its quite clear that no private company was going to build out that system. Why would you run through Montana? And without that build out the US would be in a worse position than it is. The same is true of the internet. There was no real pressing reason for a private company to build that and make it open, but because it was a government project, it did happen. And it was open. The web ( i.e. the use of HTML over the already existing internet) is also a product of Government ( this time in Europe) as is networking protocols like TCP/IP, the military invested in GPS and on and on.
And of course theres a lot of waste in the Government, invasions of the middle east being an obvious one but R&D and infrastructure is not one of them.
None of this is related to Net Neutrality. A libertarian could (I would argue should) be in favour of net neutrality.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
There's no "right" to electricity either. Would you rather that had no consumer protections?
You're correct. There is no "right" to electricity. In fact, there are better options than centralized, state-owned or controlled electricity. "Smart grids" that allow people to buy electricity from any number of providers would bring competition to consumers and drive down costs.
I don’t think you get the idea here. No one is saying that everyone has to be willing to pay for it. It’s not at the point that everything is being given for free. What’s being said, and I’ve said it now several times, that ACCESS to these services should be required. So major airlines are required to service smaller routes that aren’t profitable. That way people in smaller population centers have ACCESS to that service. The same thing for telephone service for a century. We have the same thing for highways, and electricity, and clean water.
what you guys just don’t get, is that this is good for everyone. We can look at some countries where certain areas aren’t served, and it’s a major problem. Everyone needs to feel as thought they’re being treated equally. You can’t be in pure greed mode all of the time.
Mel, I understand your thinking on this and simply disagree with nearly all of it. It is the Federal government’s job to set the playing field for businesses to compete. It’s not their job to play the part of nursemaid to every special interest or scold to businesses which are better run and able to better compete against their competition. I think Ajit Pai is still playing too safe and he needs to radically downscale the FCC.
People cannot and should not be promised landline based Internet access in every backwoods area of the country. It’s absolutely NOT the function of the Feds to do this. Many people access the Internet over their cell phones and in the future people may choose Elon Musk’s satellite-based service. When and where it makes economic sense, businesses will pursue new customers in inaccessible locations and they’ll probably continue to pay a premium for that access for some time. That’s the way it works! People who absolutely must have fast and plentiful internet options will move to the cities which offer it.
Quite right, but what do you think about net neutrality?
I’m against it. Let me guess... you’re for it.
I am but I asked you what you thought about net neutrality because you were ranting about how the federal government shouldnt guarantee every rural area have high broadband. I would agree that is not feasible. However the FCC should enforce net neutrality.
Heres the thing. The one isnt related to the other. You seem to think it is, but you dont explain why.
Comments
https://www.androidcentral.com/net-neutrality
Private capital is often used to build roads, those roads are less popular than the free roads for obvious reasons. And it doesnt look like any single private capitalist (or group of them) would have built out the freeway system, some of it is obviously loss making as it goes through low populated parts of the country. Instead while some freeways ( or turnpikes) would have been built the result would have been piecemeal and concentrated in cities. Nothing would be joined up.
Similarly if capitalism had invented the internet it would have been like that too, built to different standards, with Apple users on their own little sandbox, Windows users on another, and so on. Instead it was the government and has remained open to this day.
Ooh! Important question: Whose are they, then?Please explain the ways in which the United States government is allowed to restrict the earning of currency–and the extent thereto.Thanks, government, for allowing that! Boy, you sure are looking out for the consumer, government! I definitely want to entrust THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET ITSELF to you!That’s completely nuts.
Company: Hey, we see that Sample City has shit Internet access and a single ISP. We’d like to lay fiber optic cable there and start competing.
Government: *muffled whispering in the background* Mmm… nah.
Company: What’s that?
Government: Well, there’re just so many regulations and, uh, local ordinances that this just isn’t going to work out. *more whispering* In fact, we’re not accepting any new infrastructure buildouts at this time in this location.
Both you and Spam think you are defending capitalists by defending crony capitalism. Meanwhile the "pure" capitalists (although nothing is pure of course) like startups, content providers, most of silicon valley are in favour of net neutrality.
I dont even understand those arguments, to be honest. I think it is more of a tribal pro Republican position than anything else.
what you guys just don’t get, is that this is good for everyone. We can look at some countries where certain areas aren’t served, and it’s a major problem. Everyone needs to feel as thought they’re being treated equally. You can’t be in pure greed mode all of the time.
Oh, gee, sounds like you recognize what THE ACTUAL PROBLEM is, then. Why not combat that instead of the constitutional rule of law?
You’d be surprised how little of that I defend for being right-wing, given that you’ve (plural you) been propagandized to think that “right-wing” means “left wing from 40 years ago.”
In no way are Silicon Valley or the content providers “pure” capitalists. Holy fucking shit. They’re the lobbyists.
Show me where in the Constitution the government has the power to do what you want it to do.
like all crony capitalist enterprises there’s not just lobbying but a nexus of people who segue between the crony capitalist enterprise and the government and back again, the chair of the FCC is no exception.
Meanwhile the purer, but not pure, free market enterprises in Silicon Valley haven’t got their act together on lobbying. It’s not enough to protest, or have meetings, you need to throw the money around.
If they do I suppose the ideology of the Republican Party will change and maybe it’s supporters will have a change of heart too - since whatever the opposition to net neutrality is it isn’t a free market position.
Not anymore.
People cannot and should not be promised landline based Internet access in every backwoods area of the country. It’s absolutely NOT the function of the Feds to do this. Many people access the Internet over their cell phones and in the future people may choose Elon Musk’s satellite-based service. When and where it makes economic sense, businesses will pursue new customers in inaccessible locations and they’ll probably continue to pay a premium for that access for some time. That’s the way it works! People who absolutely must have fast and plentiful internet options will move to the cities which offer it.
The rules put in place protected you from this happening wide scale. Obama recognized that this industry follows the leader. If One tries something shady and gets away with it, it because a standard.
And of course theres a lot of waste in the Government, invasions of the middle east being an obvious one but R&D and infrastructure is not one of them.
None of this is related to Net Neutrality. A libertarian could (I would argue should) be in favour of net neutrality.
I am but I asked you what you thought about net neutrality because you were ranting about how the federal government shouldnt guarantee every rural area have high broadband. I would agree that is not feasible. However the FCC should enforce net neutrality.
Heres the thing. The one isnt related to the other. You seem to think it is, but you dont explain why.