Text of FCC 'Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom' released, eradicates net neutrality rul...

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 174
    melgross said:

    mac_128 said:
    melgross said:
    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?
    Agreed. It allows FOX to pay more for bandwidth forcing other less well funded "liberal" voices out of the marketplace. It also allows special interests to invest in news outlets thus giving them the capital to compete on the same level as big media, while effectively silencing poorly funded voices which represent those least able to represent themselves.
    Yeah, right. Fox is a very rich company. They are also owned by a man who is almost a fringe rightest. His company is one of the biggest media companies in the world. He also supports smaller outlets of the same political bent.
    Replace Fox with CNN and you will get the same correct statement. What was your point?
    Right... A false equivalency, one lies at least twice as much and pushes a distinct agenda.. You know that but you spouted whataboutism  ...
    Sites like snopes prove this point, but hey words and facts have no meaning now.
    Guess you think that Trump tells the truth just as much as Obama huh, they're "all the same" (sic), one lies 95% of the time the other 1%... they both lie...

    clemynxradarthekatapple jockey
  • Reply 82 of 174
    Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
    FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."

    15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.

    Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
    I'm glad you focused on this part.  I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted:  "The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."  Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI?  I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading.  Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles?  Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
    I'm glad you asked! The data comes from the FCC itself. Given the FCC's definition of broadband as 25/3 (three!) until it ultimately gets downgraded, the vast majority of Americans by "census blocks" have no choices. Census block with insignificant populations were excluded, so by area, the number could be loads worse. Also, not every "census block" has every house covered with the speeds mentioned.

    Study was published in 2016. There is no new study, but I'm expecting one next year at some point.


    Thanks for the clarification.  BTW, census blocks as a measure are completely worthless in describing how many people are impacted by something.  It's a geographic unit, not a population unit.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block  There are around 11 million census blocks and half of them have zero people.  I can't find a simple figure that shows what percentages of the population is covered by the most densely populated 5% of census blocks, but it's a big number.  And those are exactly the areas with the best broadband coverage.
    Another factless comment from you,  good job bud.
    Your link to wiki doesn't prove your point, or any point

    clemynx
  • Reply 83 of 174
    Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
    FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."

    15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.

    Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
    I'm glad you focused on this part.  I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted:  "The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."  Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI?  I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading.  Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles?  Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
    I'm glad you asked! The data comes from the FCC itself. Given the FCC's definition of broadband as 25/3 (three!) until it ultimately gets downgraded, the vast majority of Americans by "census blocks" have no choices. Census block with insignificant populations were excluded, so by area, the number could be loads worse. Also, not every "census block" has every house covered with the speeds mentioned.

    Study was published in 2016. There is no new study, but I'm expecting one next year at some point.


    Thanks for the clarification.  BTW, census blocks as a measure are completely worthless in describing how many people are impacted by something.  It's a geographic unit, not a population unit.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block  There are around 11 million census blocks and half of them have zero people.  I can't find a simple figure that shows what percentages of the population is covered by the most densely populated 5% of census blocks, but it's a big number.  And those are exactly the areas with the best broadband coverage.
    "Census block with insignificant populations were excluded"

    Do what you can, with the data that you have. 78% of the "significant" census blocks either don't have 25/3 internet or only have one choice where to get it from. And, the remaining 22% don't have 100% coverage. The carriers got to report a census block as covered if they had one whole house in the block serviced.
    This is completely meaningless.  I expect that if you called the presidential election based on majorities per census block, Trump had 70%+ of the vote, if not much higher.  One simply can't extrapolate from census blocks to people.  
    Yet, again, no argument. Bravo. I'm ignoring your crap from now on.
    clemynxroundaboutnow
  • Reply 84 of 174

    As many have pointed out, US citizens will be hurt by this (much like the current tax plans proposed by Congress). Will we be required to pay differing fees for accessing different bundles of sites and online services? Will it be bundled like TV packages where you pay more for the fastest access and pay less and you get slower? Will there be editorializing of what I can view? Which consumers are eager for ISPs to be able to block or slow traffic from companies that don’t pay for priority access? Even though absolutely no regular consumer would ever want this new "Internet Freedom", Ajit Pai is selling this repeal of consumer protections as the FCC protecting consumers “just as it did before 2015.” In reality--particularly with these changes coming from a former Verizon executive--most observers can view this as another case of this administration being pro-corporation and anti-consumer.

    Pai isn’t the only one to have calculated spending on broadband infrastructure. Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group, noted (PDF) investment in networks has gone UP since the Title II classification order in 2015, and that, “not a single publicly traded US ISP ever told its investors (or the SEC) that Title II negatively impacted its own investments specifically.” So selling this as something that will increase infrastructure investment is much like the theory that the Republican tax plan will benefit middle class people because corporations will be paying less in taxes. Makes zero sense.

    Regardless of who or what you believe, the truth is the internet will not be as unbiased, free and open in the US as it is now, once the 2015 net neutrality guidelines are repealed.

    edited November 2017 clemynxradarthekatapple jockey
  • Reply 85 of 174

    As many have pointed out, US citizens will be hurt by this (much like the current tax plans proposed by Congress). Will we be required to pay differing fees for accessing different bundles of sites and online services? Will it be bundled like TV packages where you pay more for the fastest access and pay less and you get slower. Will there be editorializing of what I can view? Which consumers are eager for ISPs to be able to block or slow traffic from companies that don’t pay for priority access? Even though absolutely no regular consumer would ever want this new "Internet Freedom", Ajit Pai is selling this repeal of consumer protections as the FCC protecting consumers “just as it did before 2015.” In reality--particularly with these changes coming from a former Verizon executive--most observers can view this as another case of this administration being pro-corporation and anti-consumer.

    Pai isn’t the only one to have calculated spending on broadband infrastructure. Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group, noted (PDF) investment in networks has gone UP since the Title II classification order in 2015, and that, “not a single publicly traded US ISP ever told its investors (or the SEC) that Title II negatively impacted its own investments specifically.” So selling this as something that will increase infrastructure investment is much like the theory that the Republican tax plan will benefit middle class people because corporations will be paying less in taxes. Makes zero sense.

    Regardless of who or what you believe, the truth is the internet will not be as unbiased, free and open in the US as it is now, once the 2015 net neutrality guidelines are repealed.

    There's no proof US citizens will be "hurt by this". I'd simply argue that consumers are more "harmed" by regulations which protect local markets FROM competition instead. Let anyone and everyone enter the cable/satellite/Internet service provider/wireless services race and see who comes out on top.
  • Reply 86 of 174
    georgie01 said:
    Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
    I’m always sad when I read someone say this because it is incredibly naive. Yes, in theory, the power of the market could be in consumer’s hands. But the reality is that most consumers are too lazy and are unwilling to accept sacrifice in order to produce change.

    Business, politicians, leaders, groups, etc. take advantage of this as a matter of policy. The most effective attempts at change take the form of gradual changes people don’t want but can more or less tolerate. These smaller changes combined with what amounts to propaganda convince people they actually want these things they never wanted.

    The internet is bigger than a simple commercial venture. I want a smaller government but some things should not be left to the market. 
    Other than national defense and a very short list of other functions allowed the Federal government, minding the Internet is not one of those functions. There's almost nothing the market can do which can be done better by government. This should give Americans hope.
  • Reply 87 of 174
    What happens when public policy is written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists. I oppose this change by the FCC. It does not serve the interest of the general public, nor does it protect the general public from corporate  shenanigans.

    Verizon’s statement amounts to: trust us. Kill the regulations and protections and trust us not to be greedy about Internet fast lanes and “pay to play” access to content. Whoops, Apple didn’t pay Verizon a tithe, so we’re going to slow down your downloads from iTunes Store to a crawl. Apple Music is buffering? Aww, maybe sign up for music streaming from one of or “preferred partners” who’ve paid us for the privilege. Never trust the wolves to watch over the flock.
    Why are you forgetting that there always be someone else to offer better plans and undercut that overly greedy company? That is how disruptions occur. Uber was not mandated by the gov-t, but it surely disrupted taxi industry for good. Don't like uber? Fine, don't use it.
    I think others have already responded to you, but let me add my thoughts. If I understand your basic argument, it’s something like: “free markets always lead to outcomes that support the interest of consumers.” Correct me if I’m wrong about what you meant to say.

    OK, you also mentioned Uber like it was some example of that. Really? In Austin, TX both Uber and Lyft spent $8 million to fight a local city ordinance which would have required criminal background checks for their drivers. Both companies threatened to leave town if the ordinance passed, plunging ride-sharing customers back to the era of early 00s. And both shutdown their services in Austin when the ordinance passed. You’d think (according to the free market theory) that if one of those companies left the other would gladly take over as the unchallenged monopoly in that market. But that’s not what happened: both acted in self-interest and fought against the interests of consumers, thinking that if they threatened to leave, it would make their customers think twice about voting for the measure. And they did leave to punish their customers for voting for the ordinance. That’s your free market in action. The free market did not create an outcome that protected consumers’ wishes.

    The startups and non-profits that tried to fill the void left by Uber and Lyft leaving Austin never attained the mindshare or popularity of Uber and Lyft combined. Some 60% of former Uber and Lyft customers simply stopped using ride-sharing services. Uber and Lyft were a duopoly, much like the limited or non-exist competition in residential broadband.

    Here’s another examine more germane to the topic of net neutrality: in my apartment complex, I’m only allowed to have ONE cable/internet/phone provider. One. A local monopoly. Yes, regulations exist to prevent that, but loopholes also exist to allow it (I checked). Is that consumers want? Of course not. Is the free market providing it? Hmm... other apartments are doing the same thing. Cable companies are paying apartment owners a cut in order to gain exclusive monopolies to those properties. They’re all doing it in my local market. I should be able to pick where I want to live and have my choice between the few ISPs providing service to my city.

    The nature of ISP service is that, due to infrastructure requirements, you’re lucky to have more than one or two for a particular market. A free market of one or two that would gladly gang up against the consumer (the way Uber and Lyft did in Austin) is not going to lead to outcomes that protect consumer interests.
    roundaboutnowradarthekatmuthuk_vanalingamapple jockey
  • Reply 88 of 174
    melgross said:

    lkrupp said:
    melgross said:
    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.
    What Garbage! The entire idea her is for this to happen. We’ve seen baby steps with AT&T giving special privileges to subscribers if they also subscribe to Direct TV (or whatever it’s called). That automatically makes every other service more expensive. And that with net neutrality, and an administration that didn’t want to, enforce it. Other ISPs are following suit. Without the rule, it’s going to get much worse.

    thecproblem with the right in this country is that you don’t want to be bothered to think about what these things end up doing. All you think about is what the so called benefits are by people who see the benefits for themselves. This is what regulation was invented for way back.

    you don’t remember much, apparently. But things are much more complex that when the internet first started, and there was little bandwidth. Not much could be done then. We had no video streaming. Music streaming was just barely possible. We still got most of our news from Tv. Newspapers were second. The internet? Not so much. Buying over the internet? Not really.

    thecmodern internet began in the mid/late 2000’s, when we began to get off dial-up. We weren’t so dependent on the internet for so much. Now that we are, we need net neutrality. Yeah, I know, that hinders the rights of the companies that make tens of billions a year off it. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.
    How is it possible to look on the advance of options and possibilities over the years and see no change for the better? We have faster Internet for less, accessible almost anywhere on Earth. Reminds me of the old Louis CK bit about people complaining about flying through the air on a plane...
  • Reply 89 of 174
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    melgross said:
    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.
    AT&T blocked FaceTime, then they blocked Skype -- because they wanted users to rely on calls and then not-free texts. The FCC admits in the proposal today that Comcast blocked streaming video providers, and it was because they didn't want the competition for their cable bundles. Comcast later throttled Netflix traffic that it could identify. Verizon blocked contactless payments because they were working on their own.

    And, those are just the big ones. Saying that ISPs never blocked anything before they were being watched by the Obama administration is a ridiculously false statement, and also ignores the market factors surrounding the internet's growth and usage in everyday life.
    Exactly! Verizon also throttled Netflix until they paid them more, leading to the subscription price increase.
    Netflix represents one of THE biggest bandwidth hogs on the Internet. They shouldn't have to pay more for excessive bandwidth usage? They should! In fact, them paying more would accelerate the build out of even faster Internet access.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 90 of 174
    It astonishes, and saddens me, to see all the asinine, fucking retarded commentary being posted here even REMOTELY in support of Pai's plan to dismantle net neutrality, and how fucking BLIND all you posters are to the truth of what will happen shortly thereafter...

    Your country is so fucked up, it's fucking itself and doesn't even know it's doing it anymore, congratulations!
    I'm so glad posters like this offering nothing more than disgusting insults can be easily blocked. Thanks, A.I.!
  • Reply 91 of 174
    irnchriz said:
    Just wait till the providers add ‘premium’ product tiers.

    upgrade to premium now so you can have full HD streaming from YouTube/Netflix etc.  Our standard packages will only allow 480p streaming to ensure fair use of our bandwidth.

    want to work from home via vpn? Then you need homeworker premium, only an extra 50 bucks a month.

    pmsl
    In other words, wouldn't it be great if you had an Internet access guarantee? Sounds like they could sell a lot of packages with 99.999% guaranteed online access.
  • Reply 92 of 174
    I guess I have access to more than one Internet provider if I am will to buy a 56K modem!
  • Reply 93 of 174
    I live in Washington DC. Not in one of the surrounding states, but in the city.

    I currently have the choice between Comcast cable internet or Verizon DSL (768mbps). I’m sure that some will view this as ‘choice’ but for those of us who have more than 1 device on their network and surf more than purely text websites, 768mbps is utterly crappy. 
  • Reply 94 of 174
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,755member
    melgross said:
    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. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 95 of 174
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    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. 
    Protection of the country with a military is a constitutionally proscribed function, however you and I both know that the Federal government uses private contractors for hidden-from-view-and-oversight black ops all the time.

    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.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 96 of 174
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    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. 
    Protection of the country with a military is a constitutionally proscribed function, however you and I both know that the Federal government uses private contractors for hidden-from-view-and-oversight black ops all the time.
    Are you still trying to convince everyone that you're right?    lol.   SPAMsandwich indeed.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 97 of 174
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    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. 
    Protection of the country with a military is a constitutionally proscribed function, however you and I both know that the Federal government uses private contractors for hidden-from-view-and-oversight black ops all the time.
    Are you still trying to convince everyone that you're right?    lol.   SPAMsandwich indeed.
    How about providing a counter-argument instead of a personal attack?
    tallest skil
  • Reply 98 of 174
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    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. 
    Protection of the country with a military is a constitutionally proscribed function, however you and I both know that the Federal government uses private contractors for hidden-from-view-and-oversight black ops all the time.
    Are you still trying to convince everyone that you're right?    lol.   SPAMsandwich indeed.
    How about providing a counter-argument instead of a personal attack?
    Pai says: "Well, I favor a free and open Internet, as I think most consumers do.

    My concern is with the particular regulations that the FCC adopted two years ago. They are what is called Title II regulations developed in the 1930s to regulate the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.

    And my concern is that, by imposing those heavy-handed economic regulations on Internet service providers big and small, we could end up disincentivizing companies from wanting to build out Internet access to a lot of parts of the country, in low-income, urban and rural areas, for example.

    And that, I think, is something that nobody would benefit from." 


    You see? What we have here is a hot, steaming load of bullshit.

    radarthekat
  • Reply 99 of 174
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    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.
    Totally. 

    Oh wait, that’s the opposite of what this government is doing. 

    Do you also have better options for police, firefighters?


    radarthekat
  • Reply 100 of 174
    lkrupp said:
    melgross said:
    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.
    Actually we’ve had 100 years of net neutrality policy. let me paste you a little story about net neutrality:


    Think about Netflix. It has unlimited streaming movies now. Comcast has streaming movies too, at $4 per movie. What if Comcast tells Netflix "unless you pay us the equivalent of $20/user per month we are going to put you in the slow lane and your users won't be able to stream." NetFlix's streaming business will be crushed. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want Congress to allow them to do exactly that, and this is why net neutrality legislation is so important.

    This isn't a result of a fertile imagination. This actually happened 100 years ago. Imagine the year is 1900. I run a steel company and you run a railroad. I sell steel for $50 per ton and you ship it for $3 per ton. I have two major competitors. I come to you and offer you $10 per ton for shipping if you agree not to carry steel for the other two. That number will give you far more profit for far less effort so you say yes. You're happy. My two competitors cannot move steel from Pittsburgh to Kansas any other way (what, by horse and wagon?) so they go out of business, or a least their business is limited to local purchasers.

    Then I raise my steel price from $50 per ton to $75. The steel buyers have to pay because they have no other choice. The competition is gone. I make huge profits. I'm happy. You make huge profits. You're happy. The consumers and my competitors aren't happy, but who gives a flying f*** about them?

    This is the history of the railroad business in the late 1800s. This scenario played out again in the 1920s in trucking. Both times Congress mandated that any shipping company must charge identical amounts for all customers, based only on size, weight, and transit time.

    We have 100 years of success with net neutrality. It's working pretty well.

    gatorguyradarthekatmuthuk_vanalingamasdasdapple jockey
This discussion has been closed.