SpamSandwich said: I sure as hell don’t want it and it’s not the function of the Federal government to intervene in functioning markets. People are not guaranteed to get everything they want. If the market cannot provide everything and anything customers want, maybe sometimes that means what customers want is unrealistic.
I disagree here. US taxpayers even paid the telcos hundreds of billion of dollars during the Clinton administration in the form of tax breaks, to provide a US infrastructure of a minimum speed of 50 Mbps bi-directional service that would cost only like $40-50/mo. While some now have some download speeds over that, few have upload speeds like that. And we're paying a heck of a lot more than $40/mo to get it. Service is horrible. There is little competition.
I'm not sure I'd call that a functioning market. And, I don' think that's unreasonable to expect, either.
That said, I think total net neutrality, as some have defined it, is unrealistic. And, the powers given to the FCC under Obama's plan were quite scary.
There needs to be regulation to create a functioning market, but we also have to be vigilant not to give the government too much power. Obama's policies did that.
They paid a $600,000 bribe to get Net Neutrality eliminated so that when they buy Time Werner, they get to eliminate any internet content that they don't profit from...
But, somehow people trust AT&T and Verizon more than their own government. Go figure....
Everyone wants net neutrality. Don't let the media tell you otherwise.
Yes, most people do want the principals of net neutrality (if they have a clue what it's all about). However, some fear certain wording in the Net Neutrality™ legislation proposed during the Obama administration, which wasn't really net neutrality anyway. And, then there is the telco industry baloney about how if they don't get their way, it will slow innovation. They've been making record profits for decades and we've seen little innovation and ever-increasing costs... why would they start now?
This whole thing is a political football between government control/potential censorship and corporate interests.
Except: Despite how its spun, it isn't "government control". It's prohibiting carriers like AT&T from controlling what you will have access to on the internet.
Everyone wants net neutrality. Don't let the media tell you otherwise.
We currently have a means to regulate the any violations before net neutrality became policy.
I sure as hell don’t want it and it’s not the function of the Federal government to intervene in functioning markets. People are not guaranteed to get everything they want. If the market cannot provide everything and anything customers want, maybe sometimes that means what customers want is unrealistic.
Yeh! Electricity, water, gas, sewage disposal, roads, bridges, defense.... People are so damn spoiled and depend on government for everything!
The government sucks at everything. At best you get mediocrity with them. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn’t know history.
So why hasn't private business already solved the problem at hand? Why does the U.S. have such limited choices for ISPs and such bad rates? Why are ISPs so scared of local governments proposing to provide basic WiFi services as an alternative to private services? Why is free WiFi at local businesses so popular? Answer: the current market for internet and phone service is non-competitive. It's a broken market.
cgWerks said: That said, I think total net neutrality, as some have defined it, is unrealistic. And, the powers given to the FCC under Obama's plan were quite scary.
Net neutrality is one of those “let’s get all emotional and angry about” issues. It’s like the analysts saying the iPhone X was a miserable flop. It’s fodder for the techie Chicken Littles of this world to wring their hands over. And if Apple were a broadband provider they would be singing a different tune I guaran-damn-tee it. So the FTC is going to monitor the bandwidth providers instead of the FCC. Big frick’n deal. All this “might”, “could”, “may” happen bull excrement being spread around is pathetic. Net neutrality is nothing more than government intrusion into and regulation of private enterprise. The state of broadband access in this country has already ground to a halt and net neutrality would only cause AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc to be further disincentivized to deploy and expand their networks. Google’s fiber project was a cruel joke, just like their barge in the middle of San Francisco bay. Elon Musk’s idea of hundreds of satellites to provide Internet access world would crumble under the weight of government price regulation. Reclassifying broadband as a regulated utility will spawn dozens of fees and taxes like those you see on your landline and electric bills, if you still have a landline that is.
There are plenty of expansions that Ajit Pai likes to point to as a victory for the end of Net Neutrality that were approved and funded under Obama.
Bottom line, Google Fiber failed because of money. Yet another Google pie-in-the-sky promise that didn’t work out. Instead of 1,100 cities they deployed in less than 20 and then pulled the plug. These days all the techies are drooling over 5G and how it will solve all of our bandwidth problems and create “true” competition. First it was copper wires, then coax, then fiber, and now 5G wireless. Oh, and remember how TCP/IP over power lines was the thing? Tremendous amounts of capital are needed to build out networks and companies also need to satisfy investors. Like I said, the day the first commercial fusion reactor connects to the grid is the day we’ll get unicorns and rainbows with Internet access.
Despite how its spun, it isn't "government control". It's prohibiting carriers like AT&T from controlling what you will have access to on the internet.
Just one: All ISPs were forced to censor everything the government said to censor (and the bill explicitly did not define what the government is and is not allowed to censor) or they’d get their licensing revoked, Which means only pre-existing ISPs can ever operate. Which means total information control. Which means the opposite of net neutrality.
Read the bill. It’s 3000 pages. Can’t be that hard. I know that no one in Congress read it, but you can.
The government sucks at everything. At best you get mediocrity with them. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn’t know history.
So why hasn't private business already solved the problem at hand? Why does the U.S. have such limited choices for ISPs and such bad rates? Why are ISPs so scared of local governments proposing to provide basic WiFi services as an alternative to private services? Why is free WiFi at local businesses so popular? Answer: the current market for internet and phone service is non-competitive. It's a broken market.
What’s the real “problem” here? Seems like it boils down to people want something for nothing. That’s THEIR problem.
So why hasn't private business already solved the problem at hand?
Government prevents it.
Why does the U.S. have such limited choices for ISPs and such bad rates?
Collusion between ISPs that the government doesn’t stop.
Why are ISPs so scared of local governments…
Because the last century and a half of US history has been nothing but unconstitutional encroachment of government power.
…proposing to provide basic WiFi services as an alternative to private services?
Ah, but WHAT alternative? What infrastructure does it use? Does it piggyback existing infrastructure (laid and operated by ISPs, therefore cutting into their QoS)? Or is it new infrastructure that is further illegal government encroachment and more taxes? Or something else? Determining that would explain to you their worry.
Why is free WiFi at local businesses so popular?
Because it isn’t fucking free and people can be tricked into thinking it is.
the current market for internet and phone service is non-competitive. It's a broken market.
Damn straight. Get the government out of it and back to doing the job it’s supposed to do. We have to fix the market.
Despite how its spun, it isn't "government control". It's prohibiting carriers like AT&T from controlling what you will have access to on the internet.
Conceptually, yes. In (historic) practice, no.
Huh?
... Oh! So is this where we debate some irrelevant, cherry picked distraction instead of the issue?
Damn straight. Get the government out of it and back to doing the job it’s supposed to do. We have to fix the market.
Maintaining a peaceful, orderly society and protecting it from nasty people like ISIS, banksters and unscrupulous ISPs IS the job of government. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your ideology...
Maintaining a peaceful, orderly society and protecting it from nasty people like ISIS, banksters and unscrupulous ISPs IS the job of government.
Hot damn, we better let the government censor all speech on the Internet and prevent new ISPs from ever being created again because ISIS is out there somewhere. Right? 🧐
Maintaining a peaceful, orderly society and protecting it from nasty people like ISIS, banksters and unscrupulous ISPs IS the job of government.
Hot damn, we better let the government censor all speech on the Internet and prevent new ISPs from ever being created again because ISIS is out there somewhere. Right? ߧবt;/div>
No law? There didn't need to be a law. It's the job of the FCC to regulate their industries -- and it did so by insuring net neutrality in a way that was upheld by the courts. That worked until Trump's lawyer got his $600K bribe from AT&T and he had his man reverse it.
For the rest of it: That's nonsense. But then so was your original assertion that the government should not insure a peaceful, stable and just society.
GeorgeBMac said: Except: Despite how its spun, it isn't "government control". It's prohibiting carriers like AT&T from controlling what you will have access to on the internet.
No, there was 'unlawful content' language which would give the FCC censorship capabilities.
It's the job of the FCC to regulate their industries
Let’s ignore the potential unconstitutionality of the FCC for now and agree that your statement is itself correct.
and it did so by insuring net neutrality
The law that was just repealed did absolutely nothing like this.
That worked until Trump's lawyer got his $600K bribe from AT&T and he had his man reverse it.
Provide proof for your claim or do not make it. Additionally, provide proof that historic payments from telecommunications companies to various members of congress, et. al. were not “the same” as this situation you’ve established.
That's nonsense.
Provide proof for your claim or do not make it.
But then so was your original assertion that the government should not insure a peaceful, stable and just society.
This assertion was never made. Additionally, justice requires adherence to objectivity.
GeorgeBMac said: Except: Despite how its spun, it isn't "government control". It's prohibiting carriers like AT&T from controlling what you will have access to on the internet.
No, there was 'unlawful content' language which would give the FCC censorship capabilities.
It's the job of the FCC to regulate their industries
Let’s ignore the potential unconstitutionality of the FCC for now and agree that your statement is itself correct.
and it did so by insuring net neutrality
The law that was just repealed did absolutely nothing like this.
That worked until Trump's lawyer got his $600K bribe from AT&T and he had his man reverse it.
Provide proof for your claim or do not make it. Additionally, provide proof that historic payments from telecommunications companies to various members of congress, et. al. were not “the same” as this situation you’ve established.
That's nonsense.
Provide proof for your claim or do not make it.
But then so was your original assertion that the government should not insure a peaceful, stable and just society.
This assertion was never made. Additionally, justice requires adherence to objectivity.
So, you're ok with bribing federal officials....
.... I guess that fits with your "anything goes / nothing is illegal" libertarian ideology...
GeorgeBMac said: Except: Despite how its spun, it isn't "government control". It's prohibiting carriers like AT&T from controlling what you will have access to on the internet.
No, there was 'unlawful content' language which would give the FCC censorship capabilities.
Comments
I'm not sure I'd call that a functioning market. And, I don' think that's unreasonable to expect, either.
That said, I think total net neutrality, as some have defined it, is unrealistic. And, the powers given to the FCC under Obama's plan were quite scary.
There needs to be regulation to create a functioning market, but we also have to be vigilant not to give the government too much power. Obama's policies did that.
Just one: All ISPs were forced to censor everything the government said to censor (and the bill explicitly did not define what the government is and is not allowed to censor) or they’d get their licensing revoked, Which means only pre-existing ISPs can ever operate. Which means total information control. Which means the opposite of net neutrality.
Read the bill. It’s 3000 pages. Can’t be that hard. I know that no one in Congress read it, but you can.
Collusion between ISPs that the government doesn’t stop.
Because the last century and a half of US history has been nothing but unconstitutional encroachment of government power.
Ah, but WHAT alternative? What infrastructure does it use? Does it piggyback existing infrastructure (laid and operated by ISPs, therefore cutting into their QoS)? Or is it new infrastructure that is further illegal government encroachment and more taxes? Or something else? Determining that would explain to you their worry.
Because it isn’t fucking free and people can be tricked into thinking it is.
Damn straight. Get the government out of it and back to doing the job it’s supposed to do. We have to fix the market.
Hot damn, we better let the government censor all speech on the Internet and prevent new ISPs from ever being created again because ISIS is out there somewhere. Right? 🧐
The capability to go after people for what the government deems 'unlawful content.'
Let’s ignore the potential unconstitutionality of the FCC for now and agree that your statement is itself correct.
The law that was just repealed did absolutely nothing like this.
Provide proof for your claim or do not make it. Additionally, provide proof that historic payments from telecommunications companies to various members of congress, et. al. were not “the same” as this situation you’ve established.Provide proof for your claim or do not make it.
This assertion was never made. Additionally, justice requires adherence to objectivity.