Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.
You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.
A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.
You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.
On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.
Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?
Can you pay to :
1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?
No.
Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.
The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
And it still doesn't say they have been, plan to or are currently blocking or discriminating. Verizon sued because they felt the FCC had no place in using rules that that made up arbitrarily outside the halls of congress. The 2010 deal was...wait for it...wait for it....unconstitutional. Hence the circuit court decision to remove those items form the FCC power plate.
Dude they SUED for the right to discriminate. Its right in your link. As far as if it ever happened.
This shows that it has. So here are 2 facts for you.
1. Verizon sued to discriminate and
2. Comcast purposefully slowed down the speed of one site and not the others (just like you said they couldnt do).
You can play dumb but you cannot refute facts
It does not show that Comcast purposely slowed down the speed of one site and not the others. It showed that Comcast did experience a slowdown with regards to one site (the chart doesn't list other video streaming services) and then the speed increased without any federal legislation or change in policy.
Verizon sued for the right to charge for increased level of service, not for the right to slow down basic services for consumers.
Read the links I posted about net neutrality:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=btlj
The Net Has Never Been Neutral - NationalJournal.com
Then explain what this statement is saying:
WASHINGTON — Less than a month after the Federal Communications Commission adopted an order aimed at keeping Internet service providers from blocking access to certain Web content or applications, Verizon asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to overturn the new rule.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/media/21fcc.html?_r=0
Nothing that you posted disproves my point and it certainly doesn't prove that Verizon sued to slow down services for consumers.
And it still doesn't say they have been, plan to or are currently blocking or discriminating. Verizon sued because they felt the FCC had no place in using rules that that made up arbitrarily outside the halls of congress. The 2010 deal was...wait for it...wait for it....unconstitutional. Hence the circuit court decision to remove those items form the FCC power plate.
Dude they SUED for the right to discriminate. Its right in your link. As far as if it ever happened.
This shows that it has. So here are 2 facts for you.
1. Verizon sued to discriminate and
2. Comcast purposefully slowed down the speed of one site and not the others (just like you said they couldnt do).
You can play dumb but you cannot refute facts
It does not show that Comcast purposely slowed down the speed of one site and not the others. It showed that Comcast did experience a slowdown with regards to one site (the chart doesn't list other video streaming services) and then the speed increased without any federal legislation or change in policy.
Verizon sued for the right to charge for increased level of service, not for the right to slow down basic services for consumers.
Read the links I posted about net neutrality:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=btlj
The Net Has Never Been Neutral - NationalJournal.com
Then explain what this statement is saying:
WASHINGTON — Less than a month after the Federal Communications Commission adopted an order aimed at keeping Internet service providers from blocking access to certain Web content or applications, Verizon asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to overturn the new rule.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/media/21fcc.html?_r=0
Nothing that you posted disproves my point and it certainly doesn't prove that Verizon sued to slow down services for consumers.
You said:
Verizon sued for the right to charge for increased level of service, not for the right to slow down basic services for consumers.
I posted this from the lawsuit:
Less than a month after the Federal Communications Commission adopted an order aimed at keeping Internet service providers from blocking access to certain Web content or applications, Verizon asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to overturn the new rule.
If they do not want to slow down services why'd they sue to be able to slow down services?
Dont worry about it...You're answer doesnt change reality.
Peace!
I am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.
You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.
A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.
You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.
On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.
Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?
Can you pay to :
1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?
No.
Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.
The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
There are plenty of private toll roads in the country today. Get back to me when any of them do what you just described. In many situations toll roads work better than public roads (not all or even most of course) because the tolls are collected from those that use the roads instead of having giant slush funds for "maintenance" that actually get diverted to other projects.
analogyI am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.
You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.
A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.
You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.
On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.
Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?
Can you pay to :
1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?
No.
Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.
The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
There are plenty of private toll roads in the country today. Get back to me when any of them do what you just described. In many situations toll roads work better than public roads (not all or even most of course) because the tolls are collected from those that use the roads instead of having giant slush funds for "maintenance" that actually get diverted to other projects.
You totally missed my point. I am sure their are tech experts on both sides of this issue but doesn't matter because it is a political issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You obviously support ISPs blocking and favoring websites.Wow you know fairly common tech terms, you must be one of those elite 3 million IT workers in the United States. I should just defer to your opinion.
or
I could realize that you are just making an appeal to authority, a common fallacy.
I guess I could play that game.
Vinton Cerf co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and considered a "father of the Internet," and Tim Berners Lee, creator of the Web, support net neutrality. If I was playing by your rules then I was say case closed. The truth is this isn't a tech issue it is a political, economic and perhaps even a moral issue.
Be a good little libertarian and go attack any regulation that the big corporations don't like meanwhile they will continue to rake in the dough with their government aided regional monopolies. Don't worry about the thousands of regulations that they are ok with because it causes barriers of entry into their industry ... just wait for them to point and then you attack. Good boy.
Cerf is a big government leftist, he has supported China style government control of the Internet all along. He adamantly opposed allowing commercial traffic on the net in the first place.
Talk about an appeal to authority.
See Wall St. 2008 for proof 
I would love for the Republican controlled house and senate to write that bill and send it to the President. He would have to sign it because he is on record as favoring net neutrality.The true issue is NOT net neutrality - it's all the crap the Democrats want to hang onto that to take even more control of what you are allowed to see or hear. Strip it down to pure net neutrality with NO amendments and ring-fence any ability to add any bells and whistles to it!
I am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.
You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.
A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.
You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.
On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.
Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?
Can you pay to :
1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?
No.
Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.
The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
There are plenty of private toll roads in the country today. Get back to me when any of them do what you just described. In many situations toll roads work better than public roads (not all or even most of course) because the tolls are collected from those that use the roads instead of having giant slush funds for "maintenance" that actually get diverted to other projects.analogyI am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.
You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.
A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.
You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.
On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.
Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?
Can you pay to :
1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?
No.
Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.
The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
There are plenty of private toll roads in the country today. Get back to me when any of them do what you just described. In many situations toll roads work better than public roads (not all or even most of course) because the tolls are collected from those that use the roads instead of having giant slush funds for "maintenance" that actually get diverted to other projects.
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
I guess I must really suck at making analogies. I will try to stop.
net neutrality
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
So you favor ISPs blocking and favoring websites?
OK then.
I would love for the Republican controlled house and senate to write that bill and send it to the President. He would have to sign it because he is on record as favoring net neutrality.The true issue is NOT net neutrality - it's all the crap the Democrats want to hang onto that to take even more control of what you are allowed to see or hear. Strip it down to pure net neutrality with NO amendments and ring-fence any ability to add any bells and whistles to it!
Totally agreement here. I will be just as mad if some Democratic appointed, ex-cable lobbyist in the FCC tries to pass something off as net neutrality that isn't as I would be if a Republican did it.
§ 51.913Transition for VoIP-PSTN traffic.
(a)
(1) Terminating Access Reciprocal Compensation subject to this subpart exchanged between a local exchange carrier and another telecommunications carrier in Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) format that originates and/or terminates in IP format shall be subject to a rate equal to the relevant interstate terminating access charges specified by this subpart. Interstate originating Access Reciprocal Compensation subject to this subpart exchanged between a local exchange carrier and another telecommunications carrier in Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) format that originates and/or terminates in IP format shall be subject to a rate equal to the relevant interstate originating access charges specified by this subpart.
I am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.
Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?
Can you pay to :
1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?
No.
Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.
The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
There are plenty of private toll roads in the country today. Get back to me when any of them do what you just described. In many situations toll roads work better than public roads (not all or even most of course) because the tolls are collected from those that use the roads instead of having giant slush funds for "maintenance" that actually get diverted to other projects.analogyI am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of the internet. Government authorities allow for the internet backbone to exist and much of its distribution network just like other utilities or roads. Telecoms have made giant profits from their investments and the governments largess.
Would we allow other utilities to use extortion as a revenue stream?
Can you pay to :
1 lower water pressure to a competing car wash?
2 Dim the lights of a competing retail outlet?
3 Close a bridge to a competing restaurant?
No.
Please explain why people who normally speak of the greatness of free markets want to let giant corporation stifle competition by manipulating a pseudo-government entity (the internet) that was designed to be common carrier.
The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
There are plenty of private toll roads in the country today. Get back to me when any of them do what you just described. In many situations toll roads work better than public roads (not all or even most of course) because the tolls are collected from those that use the roads instead of having giant slush funds for "maintenance" that actually get diverted to other projects.
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
I guess I must really suck at making analogies. I will try to stop.
net neutrality
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
So you favor ISPs blocking and favoring websites?
OK then.
Yes I do. This is a situation where the current system of choice works. For awhile, some ISPs were practicing packet discrimination and blocking some popular video streaming sites. The vast majority of their customers didn't even notice since they didn't stream video then. Later, traffic shaping was used to target daily high bandwidth users. Some of them still have these policies in force, called FAP (Fair Access Policy). The idea was that the network infrastructure was sustainable for 99% of their customers and not the 1% that were very high bandwidth users.
As technology advanced and more consumers started streaming video, the management practices had to change. Now services are sold specifically to accommodate video streaming, gaming, and even torrent use. WIthout the freedom to serve customers, the vast majority of consumers would have been forced to have their services degraded due to the actions of a very few people burdening the infrastructure.
Net Neutrality always sounds good until one looks at the details of Title II utility regulation. I remember when it was illegal to make business calls from a residential line (so no telecommuting), home lines could not have hunt groups and simul-ring because there was no approved rate structure in place, and using a computer to receive a landline telephone call on a residential line was forbidden.
The current system is working. If you don't have enough choice of broadband providers in your area, you may wish to research it further. It's likely due to a monopoly granted to your ISP by a regional government, not some corporate evil.
I am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
There are plenty of private toll roads in the country today. Get back to me when any of them do what you just described. In many situations toll roads work better than public roads (not all or even most of course) because the tolls are collected from those that use the roads instead of having giant slush funds for "maintenance" that actually get diverted to other projects.analogyI am sure you must be right. Maybe we should privatize all the roads in the country. Let the private market charge take them over and make improvements, innovations, charge tolls for their use and then they could ask business to kick in a little extra money and they just might have to close the road in front of their competitions. Don't worry about it though, the free market will make sure it works great... its not like them having a local monopoly with no real competition will affect the outcome.The government initiated and funded the creation of DARPA, ARPANET, and NSFNet not "the Internet." The government-funded backbone of ARPANET and NSFNet was transitioned to the privately funded Internet due to deregulation of the telecommunication rules that governed wireline and wireless communications.
I don't use Wikipedia as a source often, but in this case it provides a good place to start for those who want the basics and are willing to read the various documentation links.
History of the Internet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Just because the government started it as a defense project doesn't mean they own it by fiat now - should they start to impose new rules on the consumption of Tang today? The government never designed a computer system to be used as a means for consumer commerce and entertainment. Nobody in the government ever envisioned Google, Netflix nor even USMB.
The government tried to regulate telecommunications and always asserted authority over that fiefdom until the citizens demanded something else so much that even a liberal Democrat (in his time) was compelled to sign a Republican bill into law deregulating it. What was the result? The largest talking points Democrats have about how good they are - the dot com revolution.
Smart regulation works, especially when it's mostly deregulation. Net Neutrality is not smart regulation.
There are plenty of private toll roads in the country today. Get back to me when any of them do what you just described. In many situations toll roads work better than public roads (not all or even most of course) because the tolls are collected from those that use the roads instead of having giant slush funds for "maintenance" that actually get diverted to other projects.
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
I guess I must really suck at making analogies. I will try to stop.
net neutrality
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
So you favor ISPs blocking and favoring websites?
OK then.
Yes I do. This is a situation where the current system of choice works. For awhile, some ISPs were practicing packet discrimination and blocking some popular video streaming sites. The vast majority of their customers didn't even notice since they didn't stream video then. Later, traffic shaping was used to target daily high bandwidth users. Some of them still have these policies in force, called FAP (Fair Access Policy). The idea was that the network infrastructure was sustainable for 99% of their customers and not the 1% that were very high bandwidth users.
As technology advanced and more consumers started streaming video, the management practices had to change. Now services are sold specifically to accommodate video streaming, gaming, and even torrent use. WIthout the freedom to serve customers, the vast majority of consumers would have been forced to have their services degraded due to the actions of a very few people burdening the infrastructure.
Net Neutrality always sounds good until one looks at the details of Title II utility regulation. I remember when it was illegal to make business calls from a residential line (so no telecommuting), home lines could not have hunt groups and simul-ring because there was no approved rate structure in place, and using a computer to receive a landline telephone call on a residential line was forbidden.
The current system is working. If you don't have enough choice of broadband providers in your area, you may wish to research it further. It's likely due to a monopoly granted to your ISP by a regional government, not some corporate evil.
From the articles I have seen and read, it seems that all the advocates for net neutrality absolutely don't want to go down the road of a full blown title 2 regulatory regime(The Whitehouse: I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services.) but the telecoms are limiting the options through court action and legislative lobbying. The numerous cable company sponsored propaganda articles about 'the government take over of the internet' always fail to mention that there is no that actually wants that result.
You say "The current system is working", I agree but telecoms want to change the current system. As to your "traffic shaping", no one cares about a day in the life of a data packet or mundane data manipulation to ensure good service, people care about limiting and blocking content for the purpose of reducing competition.
If you are on the side of "big cable" then you will undoubtedly get what you want because they seem to control congress and the FCC. The internet will undoubtedly become dominated by giant corporate players and fewer and fewer small startups.
You wake up early, you pick up your iPhone and check your VZ-Connect page, you got 7 VZ-Likes on the cat video you posted, you would have gotten more, but an FCC censor found it objectionable and removed it. Not for the first time, you find yourself yearning for the days of Facebook. But after Verizon was named the exclusive backbone carrier by the FCC, weeks after President Obama issued the Executive Order making the internet a Title II utility. Facebook held on for awhile, but the FCC revoked their netcasting license after repeated violations of the net neutrality seditious content rules. Verizon quickly replaced Facebook with VZ-Connect, which was monitored by FCC content custodians.
You need to send Aunt Martha a thank you note for the sweater she sent you for your birthday. So you log on to VZ-Banking to check your balance. Aunt Martha is half a country away and the long distance charges for an email to her will be in the hundreds of dollars. Your balance is low, but you keep the message down to just a few words to keep the costs down.
A pile of mail is in the corner and you dread your Verizon bill. Opening it you see the usual $200 base charge, along with TTY charges, Baseline services taxes to provide internet to families on assistance. The netuse tax has gone up again, now $73.42 for a month. The tax is needed to pay the FCC regulators. But what you really dread are the long distance charges, email in the same zip code is still free, but a per mile charge for email outside of the zip code adds up quickly.
You are tempted to log on to VZ-Chatter and post a complaint, but last time you complained about your Verizon bill you got a stern letter from an FCC guardian advising you that such complaints have no place on the internet.
On the bright side, hand written letters through postal mail have made a resurgence.
Not yet.
Ah the impatience of the pre-teens.......
Well, do you have like, an approximate time so we can come back to this thread to verify?
Well, do you have like, an approximate time so we can come back to this thread to verify?
How about on your 13th birthday?
