Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[Quantum Windbag]

that is actually a good idea
a blocked list of sorts
suggest it to your carrier

They are not interested, and I have to several people, because it is better than the program that filters spam they use now & would result in far less used bandwidth for junk email.

Comcast's webmail lets you choose to get email only from the addresses you've given prior approval to.

As do many others, including Yahoo's free email.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They are not interested, and I have to several people, because it is better than the program that filters spam they use now & would result in far less used bandwidth for junk email.

Comcast's webmail lets you choose to get email only from the addresses you've given prior approval to.

almost all ISP's have filtering services that can do that
what he is asking for is the ability to block people from calling his cell phone

Call reject lists are standard on phones themselves, and have been for years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok since you seem so convinced, how exactly will this legislation cause you to "pay more and get less"? Specifically.

Oh so I get to answer your question and you don't make any specific comments on mine other than to say I don't know what I am talking about...got it.....


anyway, in the interest of comity;

We’ll start off with simple point- at&t and Comcast have already forecast revenue growth at approx. 5-7% over the next 5-7 years. Internet traffic is expected to run up additionally 25%.

They will of course have to invest approx 15-20% a year more on infrastructure to maintain current service. They have factored this into their present price points and service, however, IF they are forced to share or that is rate their services to other carriers whom they must allow to run content on their networks via an FCC dictate etc. their bus. model is in the toilet. With me so far?

So if the they cannot find growth in their own offerings via their networks and have to provide room for say netflix that do not add revenue to their bottom line on the same scale where do you think it will come from? How long before you and I start paying per Kb or MB? Instead of whats presently operating, which is one set fee for all you can link to at your contracted through put?


Okay, my turn; what is wrong with your internet service that needs fixing?

LOL, your whole premise is completely and utterly wrong. They don't have to "find space" for anyone. Everyone already has space on an equal footing. They are being prevented from giving preferential bandwidth to anyone and degrading others who are not "preferred".

To answer your question, Nothing is wrong with my internet service how it is now and I'd like to keep in that way.

Funny, what the FCC is saying about the rules contradicts what you are saying, maybe that is why they are keeping them secret.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh so I get to answer your question and you don't make any specific comments on mine other than to say I don't know what I am talking about...got it.....


anyway, in the interest of comity;

We’ll start off with simple point- at&t and Comcast have already forecast revenue growth at approx. 5-7% over the next 5-7 years. Internet traffic is expected to run up additionally 25%.

They will of course have to invest approx 15-20% a year more on infrastructure to maintain current service. They have factored this into their present price points and service, however, IF they are forced to share or that is rate their services to other carriers whom they must allow to run content on their networks via an FCC dictate etc. their bus. model is in the toilet. With me so far?

So if the they cannot find growth in their own offerings via their networks and have to provide room for say netflix that do not add revenue to their bottom line on the same scale where do you think it will come from? How long before you and I start paying per Kb or MB? Instead of whats presently operating, which is one set fee for all you can link to at your contracted through put?


Okay, my turn; what is wrong with your internet service that needs fixing?

Nothing. The private sector gives you anything you want on the internet.

Thats exactly the point. I want it to remain that way. How dense can you be?

If that is really what you wanted you wouldn't want the government involved.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok since you seem so convinced, how exactly will this legislation cause you to "pay more and get less"? Specifically.

I have a better question, not that I expect you to answer.

Why do we need rules to give us what we already have? If, as Genachowski claims, this is about keeping the Internet open, why is it that no one, including the FCC, can point to a single example of why this is needed? Other than your vague attempts to scare me.

"Federal regulators lacked authority to censure Comcast Corp. for interfering with subscribers’ Internet traffic"

Comcast Wins in Case on FCC Net Neutrality Powers (Update6) - BusinessWeek

The FCC was trying to prevent Comcast from slowing down torrent sites and charging high bandwidth subscribers more than they did the average user. The FCC ruling would have resulted in higher costs across the board, forcing people who only use the Internet for email to pay for their neighbors who download pirated music and videos. They then would have had to sit through slow connections because their bandwidth was being chocked off.

Yet you, somehow, think the FCC was right about this. Amazing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To anyone against this legislation, please answer this.

Are you ok with anyone (government, private enterprise, etc..) preventing you from accessing any site and any information that you want?

The government is already trying to prevent me from accessing Wikileaks, and applying pressure to private companies to make it harder for me to look at that content. Allowing the FCC to take over the Internet will only make it easier for them to do so.

On the other hand, if a private company tries to do the same thing, all I have to do is find another company that doesn't block it.

What was your point again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To anyone against this legislation, please answer this.

Are you ok with anyone (government, private enterprise, etc..) preventing you from accessing any site and any information that you want?

as long as you pay for it you can have anything you want. its the bandwidth that is the crux of the issue, not so much content per se'. if at&t has a per per view site, and you don't want that but want netflix you will have to pay a premium for that.Its AT&T's pipeline , their infrastructure. If at&t gets greedy they will see market forces control for that as customers seek different providers or means of delivery.

What do people do in markets where there are minimal or no choice in provider? Your reasoning would make sense if there were more then just a few major ISP's dominating the market.

What the fuck in the history of the FCC makes you think they care about the small markets where there is little, or no, competition? Every time they make rules they always favor the large markets, and the businesses with money. I grew up in a small market and was forced to watch Television when it was convenient for corporations two time zones away form me,

Maybe you should try exposing yourself to some common sense instead of the government lies you obviously prefer.

Opinion: Who'll Really Benefit from Net Neutrality Regulation? - Tech Talk - CBS News

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What do people do in markets where there are minimal or no choice in provider? Your reasoning would make sense if there were more then just a few major ISP's dominating the market.

they can do what comcast did for instance on my block 4 years ago, lay their own lines. I don't use them, I use Direct TV....market forces. I didn't like the comcast packages vs. what I was getting from Dir TV........and there ya go.

Comcast is not allowed in my area, we have Optimum only. Two miles away in the next county they have Comcast but Optimum is not allowed there. Satellite, which I tried, drops out every time it rains so it is useless and their internet access is through DSL which is not available in my area because it is too far from the Central Office. Wireless internet is more expensive than cable and slower than DSL. So basically if you don't want Optimum you are left with broadcast TV and dial-up internet.

The wonders of government at work. You should go talk to your local county reps and tell them to get out of the way of your Internet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yup...and what many don't realize is this issue above already has the gov. in the bus of picking winners and losers....optimum services his area because the local gov. has in all likelihood taken bids and granted them an exclusive.Optimum would not build if they knew that a year after they are done, say comcast comes in and submarines them.


I understand it because of the enormous cost in building infrastructure, but none the less gov. already has a say. Now if they tell Optimum they have to carry bandwidth for someone else and Optimum wants to carry their own, and say no, what then? Net neutrality will make it so.

thing is, most of these companies have more than paid for that infrastructure and need to face competition
the only thing i think should be required is if they want to service a community, they be required to cover ALL the community, not just the most profitable areas

That is the logic behind the government monopoly. The problem here is that the FCC requires anyone who goes to the expense of building the infrastructure to lease access to it at less than what it cost to operate and maintain. This effectively subsidizes the competition and makes it less attractive to invest in the infrastructure.

 

[DiveCon]

yup...and what many don't realize is this issue above already has the gov. in the bus of picking winners and losers....optimum services his area because the local gov. has in all likelihood taken bids and granted them an exclusive.Optimum would not build if they knew that a year after they are done, say comcast comes in and submarines them.


I understand it because of the enormous cost in building infrastructure, but none the less gov. already has a say. Now if they tell Optimum they have to carry bandwidth for someone else and Optimum wants to carry their own, and say no, what then? Net neutrality will make it so.

thing is, most of these companies have more than paid for that infrastructure and need to face competition
the only thing i think should be required is if they want to service a community, they be required to cover ALL the community, not just the most profitable areas

That is the logic behind the government monopoly. The problem here is that the FCC requires anyone who goes to the expense of building the infrastructure to lease access to it at less than what it cost to operate and maintain. This effectively subsidizes the competition and makes it less attractive to invest in the infrastructure.

naw, i would say any competition should run their own lines
with the experience of dealing with a telco on the lease of lines and how they would put you on a very dirty line and keep the best ones for themselves
you could get them to swap you to other lines, but you had to fight them over it and in the mean time, the customer was getting shitty service from what seemed to them to be US

 

[Quantum Windbag]

thing is, most of these companies have more than paid for that infrastructure and need to face competition
the only thing i think should be required is if they want to service a community, they be required to cover ALL the community, not just the most profitable areas

That is the logic behind the government monopoly. The problem here is that the FCC requires anyone who goes to the expense of building the infrastructure to lease access to it at less than what it cost to operate and maintain. This effectively subsidizes the competition and makes it less attractive to invest in the infrastructure.

naw, i would say any competition should run their own lines
with the experience of dealing with a telco on the lease of lines and how they would put you on a very dirty line and keep the best ones for themselves
you could get them to swap you to other lines, but you had to fight them over it and in the mean time, the customer was getting shitty service from what seemed to them to be US

I could easily point out that your company got what they paid for, and could have paid more to lease a higher quality line. That was not your decision personally, but if the government hadn't come in with that stupid rule about leases companies would have been happy to pay more for better service.

 

[Synthaholic]

Comcast is not allowed in my area, we have Optimum only. Two miles away in the next county they have Comcast but Optimum is not allowed there. Satellite, which I tried, drops out every time it rains so it is useless and their internet access is through DSL which is not available in my area because it is too far from the Central Office. Wireless internet is more expensive than cable and slower than DSL. So basically if you don't want Optimum you are left with broadcast TV and dial-up internet.

and WHY isnt Comcast allowed in your area?
i can answer that for you, the government wont allow it,

If it was a monopoly, then wireless cellphone providers would not be allowed to provide 3G networks within that area.

It's not a monopoly.

 

[Vast LWC]

People keep telling me that phone company deregulation was a bad idea, yet I pay less per year for all 4 phone lines and 1 cell phone I have, all with unlimited long distance, per year than my parents paid per month for their single line. Yet, somehow, that is bad for me.

Yeah... Because that had everything to do with "Deregulation" and nothing to do with any of the following:

1. the enforced breakup of Ma Bell by the government.

2. The advent of the cell phone

and

3. The advent of the internet.

Oh, and both wireless and hardline data service network development were both heavily subsidized by the government.

But really, your phone bill going down was all about "deregulation".

Just like the continuing growth of GDP was due to "lower taxes on the rich" as opposed to massive advances in automation I guess.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People keep telling me that phone company deregulation was a bad idea, yet I pay less per year for all 4 phone lines and 1 cell phone I have, all with unlimited long distance, per year than my parents paid per month for their single line. Yet, somehow, that is bad for me.

Yeah... Because that had everything to do with "Deregulation" and nothing to do with any of the following:

1. the enforced breakup of Ma Bell by the government.

2. The advent of the cell phone

and

3. The advent of the internet.

Oh, and both wireless and hardline data service network development were both heavily subsidized by the government.

But really, your phone bill going down was all about "deregulation".

Just like the continuing growth of GDP was due to "lower taxes on the rich" as opposed to massive advances in automation I guess.

How was deregulation bad for me? I still can't see it, despite you talking about things that have nothing to do with the subject.

 

[edthecynic]

they can do what comcast did for instance on my block 4 years ago, lay their own lines. I don't use them, I use Direct TV....market forces. I didn't like the comcast packages vs. what I was getting from Dir TV........and there ya go.

Comcast is not allowed in my area, we have Optimum only. Two miles away in the next county they have Comcast but Optimum is not allowed there. Satellite, which I tried, drops out every time it rains so it is useless and their internet access is through DSL which is not available in my area because it is too far from the Central Office. Wireless internet is more expensive than cable and slower than DSL. So basically if you don't want Optimum you are left with broadcast TV and dial-up internet.

The wonders of government at work. You should go talk to your local county reps and tell them to get out of the way of your Internet.

The government has nothing to do with it. Comcast and Optimum work together on many projects. They have each agreed to stay out of each others territory. If I try to sign up for Comcast, Comcast sends me directly to Optimum.

 

[Vast LWC]

People keep telling me that phone company deregulation was a bad idea, yet I pay less per year for all 4 phone lines and 1 cell phone I have, all with unlimited long distance, per year than my parents paid per month for their single line. Yet, somehow, that is bad for me.

Yeah... Because that had everything to do with "Deregulation" and nothing to do with any of the following:

1. the enforced breakup of Ma Bell by the government.

2. The advent of the cell phone

and

3. The advent of the internet.

Oh, and both wireless and hardline data service network development were both heavily subsidized by the government.

But really, your phone bill going down was all about "deregulation".

Just like the continuing growth of GDP was due to "lower taxes on the rich" as opposed to massive advances in automation I guess.

How was deregulation bad for me? I still can't see it, despite you talking about things that have nothing to do with the subject.

I didn't say it was bad for you, I was just saying it wasn't the reason your phone bill went down.

However, that being said, the government breaking up the phone company in the first place would definitely be considered "regulation".

 

[kaz]

Republicans, by destroying competition on the internet -- by narrowing our information choices -- are turning us into a parody of the old Soviet Union. God help us.

Liberal logic is so funny. Our choice:

a) Lots of independent companies make independent decisions about what they with their own resources do with their piece of the net and if they fail they go bust

b) One all powerful government with the power of guns to enforce one standard on all with the ability to shut others down for not following it's decree and the ability to confiscate more money if it needs it makes a choice for everyone.

OMG, if we allow choice, we are the Soviet Union! A central government making it's own decrees is the only way to protect us from an all powerful centeral government!!!!!!!!

Gotcha....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Comcast is not allowed in my area, we have Optimum only. Two miles away in the next county they have Comcast but Optimum is not allowed there. Satellite, which I tried, drops out every time it rains so it is useless and their internet access is through DSL which is not available in my area because it is too far from the Central Office. Wireless internet is more expensive than cable and slower than DSL. So basically if you don't want Optimum you are left with broadcast TV and dial-up internet.

The wonders of government at work. You should go talk to your local county reps and tell them to get out of the way of your Internet.

The government has nothing to do with it. Comcast and Optimum work together on many projects. They have each agreed to stay out of each others territory. If I try to sign up for Comcast, Comcast sends me directly to Optimum.

The local county governments have contracts with either Comcast or Optimum to provide exclusive access to local markets in return for higher fees, and a kickback to the government coffers.

 

[DiveCon]

The wonders of government at work. You should go talk to your local county reps and tell them to get out of the way of your Internet.

The government has nothing to do with it. Comcast and Optimum work together on many projects. They have each agreed to stay out of each others territory. If I try to sign up for Comcast, Comcast sends me directly to Optimum.

The local county governments have contracts with either Comcast or Optimum to provide exclusive access to local markets in return for higher fees, and a kickback to the government coffers.

the fact edthemoron doesn't know this is not really a surprise, he is so clueless on SO many topics it is astounding