Obama hacks another limb off representative republic: FCC does Net Neutrality

[Revere]

nope, fox news didn't cover that so they have no idea. these are also people who have 0 understanding of how networks operate

I worked over 25 years in mega telecom. The last 15 in the data and networking end of things....
One would not even have to control the entire net, just certain segments to shut things down.

yep look at how pakistan brought down youtube for the entire world by re-routing the wrong AS

Again, an argument against letting government do this, not one network.

 

[Revere]

Or is net neutrality like Obamacare, the solution to a catastrophic illness most people won't get?

so you are still an idiot. back to the ignore list

After you get done talking to yourself, fuck yourself.

 

[Revere]

Who has said they want to block access to Fox, besides government?

comcast owns nbc. once net neutrality is gone they could block every other new outlets site without reprieve and since comcast has a huge monopoly in many areas across the country there isn't shit people could do about it.

Why the hell would they? They can do that now.

 

[blu]

Who has said they want to block access to Fox, besides government?

comcast owns nbc. once net neutrality is gone they could block every other new outlets site without reprieve and since comcast has a huge monopoly in many areas across the country there isn't shit people could do about it.

Why the hell would they? They can do that now.

no they can't. they have to serve equal access to all sites unless they host contraband (child porn mostly), which is exactly how the Internet should be and why net neutrality is so important

 

[blu]

I worked over 25 years in mega telecom. The last 15 in the data and networking end of things....
One would not even have to control the entire net, just certain segments to shut things down.

yep look at how pakistan brought down youtube for the entire world by re-routing the wrong AS

Again, an argument against letting government do this, not one network.

dumb dumb dumb

 

[Londoner]

I wonder if we should consider the difference between market factors and extra-market factors.

For example. The free market, because it is an amoral profit maximizing mechanism, does not care about child labor laws. And this profit-myopia is a good thing. I would not invest in any company that did not want to expand market share, that is, I would not invest in any company that did not want to become a monopoly.

Child Labor Laws don't come from the market, they come from the Government. Laws against pollution and racial discrimination don't come from the market, they come from the Government.

The Market -- our market, every market that has ever been -- is controlled by a host of extra-market factors, by laws and regulations. Some of those laws and regulations are terrible because they fly in the face of natural incentives. (Thankfully, in the 70s, America started to shed many of its most inefficient regulations.) Other laws & regulations, however, are actually valuable because they prevent corruption, or protect a value important to our society, e.g., child pornography laws. [Make no mistake: every economy has effective, universally supported extra-market values which are imposed by government. The GOP, for instance, believes in a high degree of protectionism for American pharmaceutical companies. Don't kid yourself, the Right craves Government regulations just as much as the Left; they just differ on what those regulations should be.]

Where does net neutrality come into this? Information is essential to a healthy Democracy. Having informed voters is not necessarily protected by the incentives of buyers and sellers, but no Democracy could thrive unless voters had access to a minimum threshold of viewpoints, e.g., it would be dangerous to our Democracy and freedom if voters only had access to ideas with corporate money behind them. Thus, like laws against child labor and child pornography, some believe that maximizing access to information is an important extra-market value. These people believe that having information monopolies on the web would be harmful to the information requirements of Democracy. You may disagree with this, but you can't simply dismiss it with pre-packaged talk radio slurs.

I don't understand the specifics of net neutrality well enough to make an informed judgment, but I do know that talk radio slurs like "socialism" are analytically useless when it comes to measuring the crux of this issue. Before I take a stand on this issue, I want to know how it affects the voter's ability to access a diversity of viewpoints. I think extra-market factors like "information access" are worth protecting in a Democracy. I think the maximization of "consumer choice" when it comes to information is vital to a Democracy, that is, this is one area where the downside of regulation is potentially outweighed by the upside of protecting the widest possible circulation of viewpoints. The problem with talk radio is that it gives its audience conclusions without premises, and it also tells people that all government control is evil. [This is just too simplistic] The naive target audience of political opinion control -- I'm thinking of passionate folks without much education -- don't understand something really basic: the economic system would not work without a certain number of laws and regulations. Whether or not net neutrality in its present form is worth advancing is genuinely an open question, one which cannot be effectively debated in forums like this one -- where people so clearly suffer from not having enough information. Ironic.

 

[JFK_USA]

Who has said they want to block access to Fox, besides government?

The private companies. They will shut down sites they feel aren't for you. Limiting the website's free speech because they will restrict what you sell creating a monopoly of product which is against anti-trust laws. They unfairly shift the market in their favor. That isn't capitalism. Capitalism is the FREE MARKET not a Manipulated market.

Providers should not limit the access to the internet because they don't like it. Thats not freedom. But obviously Revere, your against freedom.

 

[Revere]

Who has said they want to block access to Fox, besides government?

The private companies. They will shut down sites they feel aren't for you. Limiting the website's free speech because they will restrict what you sell creating a monopoly of product which is against anti-trust laws. They unfairly shift the market in their favor. That isn't capitalism. Capitalism is the FREE MARKET not a Manipulated market.

Providers should not limit the access to the internet because they don't like it. Thats not freedom. But obviously Revere, your against freedom.

You're not free to use someone else's network on your terms. Sorry, chump.

They can do that now. Why aren't they?

Why do you want to pass a law against somethign that is not happening, and only government can abuse?

 

[uscitizen]

I worked over 25 years in mega telecom. The last 15 in the data and networking end of things....
One would not even have to control the entire net, just certain segments to shut things down.

yep look at how pakistan brought down youtube for the entire world by re-routing the wrong AS

Again, an argument against letting government do this, not one network.

Idjit it is not the govt runing the net, just setting up rules on how it is run.
Same as for the landline telcos and forcing them to share their wireline networks with competitors many years ago. something the right strongly supported as I recall.
For once try and learn of which you speak instead of being a mindless parrot for those in power.

 

[blu]

Who has said they want to block access to Fox, besides government?

The private companies. They will shut down sites they feel aren't for you. Limiting the website's free speech because they will restrict what you sell creating a monopoly of product which is against anti-trust laws. They unfairly shift the market in their favor. That isn't capitalism. Capitalism is the FREE MARKET not a Manipulated market.

Providers should not limit the access to the internet because they don't like it. Thats not freedom. But obviously Revere, your against freedom.

You're not free to use someone else's network on your terms. Sorry, chump.

They can do that now. Why aren't they?

Why do you want to pass a law against somethign that is not happening, and only government can abuse?

because they have tried it (comcast a few times and lost everyone) due to existing laws near what net neutrality wants to finally cement.

also, if ISPs want to start playing god of what passes through their network than they can loss their carrier-only status and start becoming legally responsible for what passes through. I can't wait for comcasts and cox's ceo to go to jail b/c their customers download child porn.

 

[blu]

yep look at how pakistan brought down youtube for the entire world by re-routing the wrong AS

Again, an argument against letting government do this, not one network.

Idjit it is not the govt runing the net, just setting up rules on how it is run.
Same as for the landline telcos and forcing them to share their wireline networks with competitors many years ago. something the right strongly supported as I recall.
For once try and learn of which you speak instead of being a mindless parrot for those in power.

don't waste time on him, just add him to ignore list, just like ISPs will do to his favorite web sites once net neutrality is gone

 

[Revere]

The private companies. They will shut down sites they feel aren't for you. Limiting the website's free speech because they will restrict what you sell creating a monopoly of product which is against anti-trust laws. They unfairly shift the market in their favor. That isn't capitalism. Capitalism is the FREE MARKET not a Manipulated market.

Providers should not limit the access to the internet because they don't like it. Thats not freedom. But obviously Revere, your against freedom.

You're not free to use someone else's network on your terms. Sorry, chump.

They can do that now. Why aren't they?

Why do you want to pass a law against somethign that is not happening, and only government can abuse?

because they have tried it (comcast a few times and lost everyone) due to existing laws near what net neutrality wants to finally cement.

also, if ISPs want to start playing god of what passes through their network than they can loss their carrier-only status and start becoming legally responsible for what passes through. I can't wait for comcasts and cox's ceo to go to jail b/c their customers download child porn.

I thought I was on ignore, pussy.

If Comcast blocks content and loses business, that's their problem.

 

[Revere]

The private companies. They will shut down sites they feel aren't for you. Limiting the website's free speech because they will restrict what you sell creating a monopoly of product which is against anti-trust laws. They unfairly shift the market in their favor. That isn't capitalism. Capitalism is the FREE MARKET not a Manipulated market.

Providers should not limit the access to the internet because they don't like it. Thats not freedom. But obviously Revere, your against freedom.

You're not free to use someone else's network on your terms. Sorry, chump.

They can do that now. Why aren't they?

Why do you want to pass a law against somethign that is not happening, and only government can abuse?

because they have tried it (comcast a few times and lost everyone) due to existing laws near what net neutrality wants to finally cement.

also, if ISPs want to start playing god of what passes through their network than they can loss their carrier-only status and start becoming legally responsible for what passes through. I can't wait for comcasts and cox's ceo to go to jail b/c their customers download child porn.

No, they're running the net. They're telling ISPs what content to carry.

There are already laws against child porn.

You're really out of arguments if you fall back on that one.

 

[uscitizen]

One factor most are not aware of. the mega telcos are moving big time into combined digital fiber services to the home. Net, Telephone and TV cable type services.

 

[Revere]

One factor most are not aware of. the mega telcos are moving big time into combined digital fiber services to the home. Net, Telephone and TV cable type services.

So what? I have the choice of three or four here. I dropped Time Warner to get FIOS. FIOS paid to wire the whole community with fiber optic. What claim does goverment have on that?

If I don't like their land line services, I can use my cell phone...still more choices in carriers.

My cell carrier waived one month's bill, $350, so I would not jump ship to someone else. Can someone please tell me where government has to step in and fight battles for me?

Where do you people get it in your head that there is anything remotely resembling a monopoly here?

 

[Revere]

Don't tell me about the one hub town in Bumblefuck, Iowa, where you don't have lots of choices in ISPs. Do you have lots of choices for anything in places like that? Auto repair? Department stores? Is there more than one car dealer in town? Should you be able to force Lowe's to carry the brand of paint that Home Depot does if Home Depot is not in town?

 

[uscitizen]

Your cable and telco has franchises with local authorities and no competitor can run fiber to your home or business.

If you have wireline service you can get different ISP's/DSL due to telephone deregulation.
If you have fiber it is not the same rules I think.

And you cannot get nearly the bandwidth out of wireless net service as you can DSL.

And many wireless carriers have no generator backups in case of power outages at their cell sites. So within 8 hours your wireless access dies.

and you still do not get that your cell service, your dsl, etc all funnel down to likely at most 3 Backbone carriers in your area. Most rural areas only have one backbone provider.

and cable net service can suck big time if you are in a university or some other high net use area as cable net service is pretty much just a big LAN and can choke big time during high useage. Same with cell type net service in many/most areas.
.

 

[Revere]

Your cable and telco has franchises with local authorities and no competitor can run fiber to your home or business.

If you have wireline service you can get different ISP's/DSL due to telephone deregulation.
If you have fiber it is not the same rules I think.

And you cannot get nearly the bandwidth out of wireless net service as you can DSL.

And many wireless carriers have no generator backups in case of power outages at their cell sites. So within 8 hours your wireless access dies.

So what? All consumer commodities are like that. Where the hell does it say that internet access is a public good?

 

[asterism]

This doesn't look so bad to me. What am I missing? What am I not understanding?
What is Net neutrality? - Definition from Whatis.com - see also: network neutrality, First Amendment of the Internet

Net neutrality is the principle that data packets on the Internet should be moved impartially, without regard to content, destination or source. Net neutrality is sometimes referred to as the "First Amendment of the Internet."

In the United States, high-speed Internet carriers, including AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, are seeking legislative support for a two-tiered Internet service model. In a two-tiered model, carriers would be able to charge owners of Web sites a premium fee for priority placement and faster speed across their pipes.

Those opposing the carriers argue that the Internet was designed to work in a traffic-neutral way and has become what it is, to some extent, because of that neutrality. They would like to see Congress pass a telecom reform bill that contains language in favor of Net neutrality.

"Net Neutrality" seeks to stop the "2 Tiered Internet" right?

Somewhat, but under its rules thousands of customers can't get email or view websites if one customer paying the same fee clogs the network with constant torrent streams.

 

[Revere]

Haven't these fucking morons figured out, after 50 years, that government can't make people or things equal?