Just a quick reminder: Net Neutrality is not an idea created by and forced upon ISPs by the Obama Administration (or any other administration). It was the concept under which the entire net has always operated (though there was an attempt early on to bring it all under US control, which was soundly rejected). Nearly every country on earth has net neutrality, and the US will be alone (well, apart from some repressive third-world regimes, and China) if it truly ends Net Neutrality.
It certainly won't happen overnight, but over time US customers will pay more -- and get less -- than other countries. That will be quite the distinct competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.
And while this particular effort may or may not be "doomed," it's worth a call to your Representatives (especially those up for re-election) to let them know this is an important issue to you, if it is. Really, the least you can do (and if/when this effort fails, following through with your vote is a great second option). Hopefully the end of the tyranny of Ajit Pai is in sight.
.... I guess that fits with your "anything goes / nothing is illegal" libertarian ideology...
1. Try the fuck again, this time without a strawman or libel. Preferably by replying to what was actually said. 2. How many times have I spoken out against libertarianism? I don’t fault you for missing it–it’s just an anonymous Internet forum–but honestly, it’s a little silly for you to think that I’m a libertarian given just my publicly affirmed political beliefs. For example, truth is more important than freedom. A libertarian gets offended by that idea.
Now how about you reply to what I actually said, since there’s nothing else here for you?
How is that true at all? What are you defining as “net neutrality”?
over time US customers will pay more -- and get less -- than other countries.
So… exactly like it has always been, forever. Got it. Look at European prices. Look at third world prices. To which are we closer? You’re not solving anything by whining about this legislation, because it INHERENTLY doesn’t solve THAT problem.
Hopefully the end of the tyranny of Ajit Pai is in sight.
Yeah, you know nothing about what’s happening here or what the law said.
Just a quick reminder: Net Neutrality is not an idea created by and forced upon ISPs by the Obama Administration (or any other administration). It was the concept under which the entire net has always operated (though there was an attempt early on to bring it all under US control, which was soundly rejected). Nearly every country on earth has net neutrality, and the US will be alone (well, apart from some repressive third-world regimes, and China) if it truly ends Net Neutrality.
Well, Obama attempted to force Net Neutrality™ on the ISPs AND the American people, but not necessarily net neutrality. We don't know what exactly would have happened under it, though, as it was never put into law. Possibly, the threat of it impacted ISP decisions. Yes, some of the principals of net neutrality were kind of in play in the earlier years of the Internet.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that net neutrality is held by almost every other country. We don't have that here in Canada. I'm, frankly, not aware of anyone who has net neutrality. In fact, it's questionable if the Internet were operating under pure net neutrality principals, if it would even work anymore.
That said, I believe *aspects* of net neutrality (principals) should be enforced in some way, specifically trying to prevent collusion between content producers and content delivery. That is where the true danger comes in, in terms of net neutrality principal.
chasm said: It certainly won't happen overnight, but over time US customers will pay more -- and get less -- than other countries. That will be quite the distinct competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.
I suppose too much collusion between content producers and delivery would impact pricing. But, I'm wondering if that's what you're referring to. Too many people seem to think net neutrality is about plan-pricing and data caps and stuff like that. It isn't primarily about that. There's also nothing I'm aware of in net neutrality principal that has anything to do with the whole private vs utility models (that are such a heated part of this particular political debate).
And, as Tallest Skil said above, the rough net neutrality nature of the earlier Internet certainly didn't help in terms of advancement and pricing. I think that is mostly a separate issue, which has more to do with lack of competition and a soft-monopoly state of things. I suppose (if I trusted the government an inch), a properly structured utility model could work, though I think a private with competition model would work too.
The USA is already near the bottom though, so if we need that kind of competitive advantage, we've lost so far. Canada's is nearly as bad, possibly worse in some ways.
chasm said: And while this particular effort may or may not be "doomed," it's worth a call to your Representatives (especially those up for re-election) to let them know this is an important issue to you, if it is. Really, the least you can do (and if/when this effort fails, following through with your vote is a great second option).
I agree here. A ton of the current representation needs to be voted out, whether in regard to this or other things (mostly other things... I'd be more concerned over the warmongers and one-world-order types, but that's just me). I suggest Congressional Dish podcast to keep tabs on what is happening (I disagree with some of the host's views, but she is providing an invaluable service!).
I'm not sure where you get the idea that net neutrality is held by almost every other country. We don't have that here in Canada. I'm, frankly, not aware of anyone who has net neutrality.
Oh, you’re Canadian! Now I know not to say certain things to you, because you don’t have freedom of speech and just reading them will get you into trouble. Or maybe just AI banned from the Canadian Internet.
My problem with libertarians is the same I have with liberals. Both are idealists that are unable to accept that when their utopia has been implemented in the real world it has been a disaster for everyone but the elites that profited whether it was the rail barons of the US west or Stalin and Russia.
tallest skil said: Oh, you’re Canadian! Now I know not to say certain things to you, because you don’t have freedom of speech and just reading them will get you into trouble. Or maybe just AI banned from the Canadian Internet.
Heh, well I'm actually a US citizen living in Canada (permanent residency). Soon we can become Canadian citizens, and I'll pay more attention to the politics here. But, yes, freedom of speech is more or less hanging on whims at this point. Given the 'living document' postmodern interpretation baloney going on these days with the US Constitution and activist judges, I doubt you're really all that far behind. The USA has a better foundation for human rights, but not if the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Canada, England, EU, etc. have some nice language flourishes in their human rights declarations, but they aren't based on any substance like the US.
My problem with libertarians is the same I have with liberals. Both are idealists that are unable to accept that when their utopia has been implemented in the real world it has been a disaster for everyone but the elites that profited whether it was the rail barons of the US west or Stalin and Russia.
No system is going to work, because... human nature. But, it is more a question of which system works best given that reality. The problem is when these systems start getting too pure of a 'science' and forget that. Capitalism is a great example of this.
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.
The entrenched players are fighting tooth and nail to prevent Google from running fiber in what they want to claim is their yard, pressuring local bureaucrats and filing legal challenges. The project itself isn't dead, but hardwiring is certainly slowing. I think I've read that Google is shifting to a different method of delivering internet and content services that works around blockades by Verizon, Comcast etc. May not be successful but hey, trying.
gatorguy said: The entrenched players are fighting tooth and nail to prevent Google from running fiber in what they want to claim is their yard, pressuring local bureaucrats and filing legal challenges. The project itself isn't dead, but hardwiring is certainly slowing. I think I've read that Google is shifting to a different method of delivering internet and content services that works around blockades by Verizon, Comcast etc. May not be successful but hey, trying.
Yep, same things for any kind of local initiative to provide service to an area. The big telcos bring in teams of lawyers to put every kind of obstacle possible in the way. I wouldn't doubt that also includes a lot of backgrounds pressure and 'deal-making' with any local influencer defectors.
My problem with libertarians is the same I have with liberals. Both are idealists that are unable to accept that when their utopia has been implemented in the real world it has been a disaster for everyone but the elites that profited whether it was the rail barons of the US west or Stalin and Russia.
Comments
It certainly won't happen overnight, but over time US customers will pay more -- and get less -- than other countries. That will be quite the distinct competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.
And while this particular effort may or may not be "doomed," it's worth a call to your Representatives (especially those up for re-election) to let them know this is an important issue to you, if it is. Really, the least you can do (and if/when this effort fails, following through with your vote is a great second option). Hopefully the end of the tyranny of Ajit Pai is in sight.
2. How many times have I spoken out against libertarianism? I don’t fault you for missing it–it’s just an anonymous Internet forum–but honestly, it’s a little silly for you to think that I’m a libertarian given just my publicly affirmed political beliefs. For example, truth is more important than freedom. A libertarian gets offended by that idea.
Now how about you reply to what I actually said, since there’s nothing else here for you?
So… exactly like it has always been, forever. Got it. Look at European prices. Look at third world prices. To which are we closer? You’re not solving anything by whining about this legislation, because it INHERENTLY doesn’t solve THAT problem.Yeah, you know nothing about what’s happening here or what the law said.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that net neutrality is held by almost every other country. We don't have that here in Canada. I'm, frankly, not aware of anyone who has net neutrality. In fact, it's questionable if the Internet were operating under pure net neutrality principals, if it would even work anymore.
That said, I believe *aspects* of net neutrality (principals) should be enforced in some way, specifically trying to prevent collusion between content producers and content delivery. That is where the true danger comes in, in terms of net neutrality principal.
I suppose too much collusion between content producers and delivery would impact pricing. But, I'm wondering if that's what you're referring to. Too many people seem to think net neutrality is about plan-pricing and data caps and stuff like that. It isn't primarily about that. There's also nothing I'm aware of in net neutrality principal that has anything to do with the whole private vs utility models (that are such a heated part of this particular political debate).
And, as Tallest Skil said above, the rough net neutrality nature of the earlier Internet certainly didn't help in terms of advancement and pricing. I think that is mostly a separate issue, which has more to do with lack of competition and a soft-monopoly state of things. I suppose (if I trusted the government an inch), a properly structured utility model could work, though I think a private with competition model would work too.
The USA is already near the bottom though, so if we need that kind of competitive advantage, we've lost so far. Canada's is nearly as bad, possibly worse in some ways.
I agree here. A ton of the current representation needs to be voted out, whether in regard to this or other things (mostly other things... I'd be more concerned over the warmongers and one-world-order types, but that's just me). I suggest Congressional Dish podcast to keep tabs on what is happening (I disagree with some of the host's views, but she is providing an invaluable service!).
Canada, England, EU, etc. have some nice language flourishes in their human rights declarations, but they aren't based on any substance like the US.
No system is going to work, because... human nature. But, it is more a question of which system works best given that reality. The problem is when these systems start getting too pure of a 'science' and forget that. Capitalism is a great example of this.