Cable & ISP groups sue to block California's net neutrality protections

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 553member
    JWSC said:
    genovelle said:
    lkrupp said:
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet. That’s why the power to regulate commerce is given to the Federal government by the Constitution, not individual states. You may be for net neutrality or against it but it’s the Feds that should be making those rules, not individual states. If you are a net neutrality supporter then wait for your much touted Blue Wave in November. If you don’t support it then hope the new Congress is not veto proof. Personally I see this not being resolved until 2020 at the earliest. Obama created net neutrality by presidential edict. Trump abolished it by presidential edict. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. This is Congress's job and they should decide one way or the other by passing legislation.
    Actually the same way it was created is how they undid it. The regulatory power they claim is the same power that put the protections into play. The reason they were needed and why these cable and Telecom companies are fighting this is because they were already putting some of this in to place. Please explain how it is in the public interest to pay through the nose for access to internet service but then have my service throttled because the mom and pop site I want to access is not on their paid list. That means that if you have a website you have to pay hundreds of carriers to ensure customers who may find you can actually use your site. This is an attempt to squeeze the juice out of small businesses leaving only big companies in E-commerce. 
    The example you have cited has been trotted out numerous times as a potential threat of ISPs gone amok.  But I don’t believe that has ever occurred - not once.  If you know of an instance please let me know because I would be very interested.

    How about having unlimited internet access using AT&T as a carrier and subscribing to Directv now and Hulu and Netflix. Since AT&T owns DIRECTV, I can stream that product without being throttled, but if I use the others, I will get throttled. That's just one example. 

    I understand that the point you are making is that we shouldn't have to come up with laws to make sure the playing field between the consumer and the companies that provide products are level, but we almost always have to.

    its a two way street and if it's not the corporations that are taking advantage of the consumer, it's the other way around.
    I subscribe to AT&T and utilize their DirecTV subsidiary so I am very familiar with these services.  Could you please be more specific as to who might be doing the throttling of DirecTV services.  I don’t quite understand what you’re saying or who might be getting hurt.

    The benefit of subscribing to AT&T and DirecTV together is that when watching DirecTV the data used does not count against your cellular data plan.  I think it’s great.
  • Reply 22 of 30
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,327member
    mknelson said:
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    It's my view the Federal government has overstepped in both cases. They should have no say about healthcare and they should take an even more hands off approach to things the FCC regulates, except if there is any evidence of monopoly. But here's the thing... monopolies happen when regulation is in place and restraining competition, not when there are free markets.
    The alternate view, of course, is that we leave both things to the corporations and we the people get fucked by insurance companies/big pharma and the mega-telcos once they figure out how to monetize and dominate the internet down to the last bit, and that maybe we should have single payer health care like the rest of the modern world and an even playing field for absolutely everyone on the internet.
    That’s an “alternate view” alright. One based on paranoia, not market-based reality. Competition in ALL consumer markets, including healthcare, will result in best outcomes for the public.
    Yeah except that hasn’t proved to be true. 
  • Reply 23 of 30
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 553member
    xbit said:
    JWSC said:

    The example you have cited has been trotted out numerous times as a potential threat of ISPs gone amok.  But I don’t believe that has ever occurred - not once.  If you know of an instance please let me know because I would be very interested.
    An example from Portugal:



    It's more common with mobile connections than home internet services in the US.
    Could you please provide a little explanation of the data plan and what you see that’s wrong with it?
  • Reply 24 of 30
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 553member
    mknelson said:
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    It's my view the Federal government has overstepped in both cases. They should have no say about healthcare and they should take an even more hands off approach to things the FCC regulates, except if there is any evidence of monopoly. But here's the thing... monopolies happen when regulation is in place and restraining competition, not when there are free markets.
    The alternate view, of course, is that we leave both things to the corporations and we the people get fucked by insurance companies/big pharma and the mega-telcos once they figure out how to monetize and dominate the internet down to the last bit, and that maybe we should have single payer health care like the rest of the modern world and an even playing field for absolutely everyone on the internet.
    That’s an “alternate view” alright. One based on paranoia, not market-based reality. Competition in ALL consumer markets, including healthcare, will result in best outcomes for the public.
    Yeah except that hasn’t proved to be true. 
    Nor has it been proven NOT to be true.
    edited October 2018
  • Reply 25 of 30
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,327member
    JWSC said:
    mknelson said:
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    It's my view the Federal government has overstepped in both cases. They should have no say about healthcare and they should take an even more hands off approach to things the FCC regulates, except if there is any evidence of monopoly. But here's the thing... monopolies happen when regulation is in place and restraining competition, not when there are free markets.
    The alternate view, of course, is that we leave both things to the corporations and we the people get fucked by insurance companies/big pharma and the mega-telcos once they figure out how to monetize and dominate the internet down to the last bit, and that maybe we should have single payer health care like the rest of the modern world and an even playing field for absolutely everyone on the internet.
    That’s an “alternate view” alright. One based on paranoia, not market-based reality. Competition in ALL consumer markets, including healthcare, will result in best outcomes for the public.
    Yeah except that hasn’t proved to be true. 
    Nor has it been proven NOT to be true.
    You’re right, that’s why the US has the best health care system in the world. Oh wait. 
  • Reply 26 of 30
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 553member
    JWSC said:
    mknelson said:
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    It's my view the Federal government has overstepped in both cases. They should have no say about healthcare and they should take an even more hands off approach to things the FCC regulates, except if there is any evidence of monopoly. But here's the thing... monopolies happen when regulation is in place and restraining competition, not when there are free markets.
    The alternate view, of course, is that we leave both things to the corporations and we the people get fucked by insurance companies/big pharma and the mega-telcos once they figure out how to monetize and dominate the internet down to the last bit, and that maybe we should have single payer health care like the rest of the modern world and an even playing field for absolutely everyone on the internet.
    That’s an “alternate view” alright. One based on paranoia, not market-based reality. Competition in ALL consumer markets, including healthcare, will result in best outcomes for the public.
    Yeah except that hasn’t proved to be true. 
    Nor has it been proven NOT to be true.
    You’re right, that’s why the US has the best health care system in the world. Oh wait. 
    You’re not actually suggesting that the US healthcare industry is a free market system are you?  Healthcare is likely the single most regulated industry in the US.  By its nature it is subject the multimillion dollar lawsuits on a regular basis.  These factors would take their efficiency toll on any industry.  We all know the healthcare industry has some serious problems when it comes to accounting/billing practices, patchy use of actuarial data, and an emerging reproducibility crisis in medical research.  Despite all that this country has great healthcare - the best in the world.  But yes, only for those who can afford it.  And that is the crux of the problem.  And that’s not necessarily a free market issue.  One could write a book (and many have) on why the industry functions as it does.  There’s nothing black and white about it.
    edited October 2018
  • Reply 27 of 30
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,706member
    lkrupp said:
    The U.S. DOJ has also filed suit against California. This is not about net neutrality per se (it is of course) but who has the authority to regulate. If each state were allowed to set up its own net neutrality rules there would be utter chaos on the Internet.
    Let me stop you right there: no there wouldn't be.

    Just as with a number of other regulations, California (as the richest and most powerful/populous state in the US) sets the standard. If California can make this law stick, other states will adopt net neutrality as well, and carriers will just adopt it as de rigeur -- exactly the same way the fact that Europe passed a tough privacy law made all the multi-nationals respond by adopting most of its regulations as SOP.

    Zero-rating is fun if it benefits you personally, but ultimately it will destroy the Internet as we know it. You want net neutrality because that's the way the net was designed to operate: your obscure-hobby site, Facebook, and some small business's website all get delivered at equal speed, with equal access for everyone. Without NN, you'll have paid tiers for the sites most people want to use the most, and extremely limited access to any sites a given carrier doesn't like/approve of/have any interest in. That would be bad.

    I'm not commenting on whether California's approach is right or wrong, but I know for a fact that the corrupted FCC's approach is wrong for consumers, and needs to be overturned.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 28 of 30
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,520member
    For intelligent people who are capable of considering a rational, constitutional approach to the “Net Neutrality” issue:

    First listen to this.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m-cURjSAxd0

    Then read this.
    http://techfreedom.org/techfreedom-will-support-doj-lawsuit-californias-unconstitutional-net-neutrality-bill/
  • Reply 29 of 30
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,327member
    JWSC said:
    JWSC said:
    mknelson said:
    I find it very telling that the progressive view is typically "put the Federal government in charge", but now... it's not! 

    So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
    I think it's more about the feeling that your (?) federal government has abrogated its responsibility so the States need to override.

    The ACA comparison is spurious.

    Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
    It's my view the Federal government has overstepped in both cases. They should have no say about healthcare and they should take an even more hands off approach to things the FCC regulates, except if there is any evidence of monopoly. But here's the thing... monopolies happen when regulation is in place and restraining competition, not when there are free markets.
    The alternate view, of course, is that we leave both things to the corporations and we the people get fucked by insurance companies/big pharma and the mega-telcos once they figure out how to monetize and dominate the internet down to the last bit, and that maybe we should have single payer health care like the rest of the modern world and an even playing field for absolutely everyone on the internet.
    That’s an “alternate view” alright. One based on paranoia, not market-based reality. Competition in ALL consumer markets, including healthcare, will result in best outcomes for the public.
    Yeah except that hasn’t proved to be true. 
    Nor has it been proven NOT to be true.
    You’re right, that’s why the US has the best health care system in the world. Oh wait. 
    You’re not actually suggesting that the US healthcare industry is a free market system are you?  Healthcare is likely the single most regulated industry in the US.  By its nature it is subject the multimillion dollar lawsuits on a regular basis.  These factors would take their efficiency toll on any industry.  We all know the healthcare industry has some serious problems when it comes to accounting/billing practices, patchy use of actuarial data, and an emerging reproducibility crisis in medical research.  Despite all that this country has great healthcare - the best in the world.  But yes, only for those who can afford it.  And that is the crux of the problem.  And that’s not necessarily a free market issue.  One could write a book (and many have) on why the industry functions as it does.  There’s nothing black and white about it.
    I'm referring to insurance companies denying care for preexisting conditions and the number of people going bankrupt after a medical emergency or chronic condition. The price gouging on essential medications is through the roof. I realize it's a complicated situation, and there are a lot of factors here, but just like with telcos, I'm not sure that I trust the industries to come up with free market solutions on their own that don't end up screwing over a lot of people for a buck. 

    We're ranked 30-something-th worldwide in healthcare last I checked.
  • Reply 30 of 30
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,327member

    For intelligent people who are capable of considering a rational, constitutional approach to the “Net Neutrality” issue:

    http://techfreedom.org/techfreedom-will-support-doj-lawsuit-californias-unconstitutional-net-neutrality-bill/
    Nice astroturf organization. Yes, please consider this rational approach from these corporate sockpuppets!
Sign In or Register to comment.