micromanaging the internet

[busybee01]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

Micromanagement goes on with net neutrality.

Naturally the disingenuous, lying left pretends exactly the opposite.

"in seeking to regulate the internet, these proposals "will jeopardize it -- and stifle further investments by ISPs -- with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace."


"As we have noted previously, “network neutrality” would provide the federal government extensive power to mandate how businesses can provide Internet service to their consumers. Innovation and investment in the Internet has occurred due to an absence of government regulation and interference. Allowing the government to step in to impose mandates on network management would represent a dangerous precedent in terms of Internet regulation and a clear infringement of private property rights by government. "

"Make no mistake: this will result in private industry ceasing to build infrastructure - next step, government steps in to solve the problem it just created with public spending and the necessary control of networks: "Now all your bandwidth are belong to Genachowski"."

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement

Why don't you educate yourself on monopolies. Government regulation is a necessity.

 

[sakinago]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

When your favourite free sites start taking forever to load, if at all, and only the paid sites are quickly loaded, you’ll change your tune.

Almost 30 years of being on the net and I haven't seen anything like what you describe. As always the market will decide.

That’s because it’s not happening yet because of net neutrality. With NN gone, you will see it happening.

IT WASNG A PROBLEM BEFORE. IN THE SINGLE CASE WHERE AN ISP DECIDED TO CHARGE A SINGLE ENTITY TAKING UP A FULL THIRD OF BANDWIDTH, CREATING A FASTLANE FOR THEM, IT MADE INTERNET SPEEDS AS WELL AS NETFLIX FASTER!!


The problems you’re talking about never existed in the 30 freaking years of the internet’s existence. NN is built for soon to be trillion dollar internet companies, NO ONE ELSE. Google did not write this out of the kindness of their hearts. They realized, o shit, our internet porn searches and streaming make up probably another 3rd of total bandwidth used...let’s save 20 million and have government fight this battle for us. There’s nothing neutral about net neutrality, it’s a misnomer. Google is nothing but a glorified ad company, but with all their algorithms, and the mass collection of YOUR data, they knew how to precisely market this to you people. YOURE BEING DUPED. And you’re arguments for it have ZERO clout since there never was a problem in the first place. Creating a fast lane for Netflix was a GOOD business model. Choking off sites that many like, would be a bad one.

There are great costs that go into bandwidth and internet infrastructure that have to continually keep growing and growing. The power usage of our server farms is outrageous. Internet doesn’t just magically happen, and NN shifted the cost of great bandwidth usages from big internet to the average consumer in their internet bills...big internet can definitely afford the fast lanes...that happen to make internet faster :gasp:

 

[Norman]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

When your favourite free sites start taking forever to load, if at all, and only the paid sites are quickly loaded, you’ll change your tune.

Almost 30 years of being on the net and I haven't seen anything like what you describe. As always the market will decide.

That’s because it’s not happening yet because of net neutrality. With NN gone, you will see it happening.

IT WASNG A PROBLEM BEFORE. IN THE SINGLE CASE WHERE AN ISP DECIDED TO CHARGE A SINGLE ENTITY TAKING UP A FULL THIRD OF BANDWIDTH, CREATING A FASTLANE FOR THEM, IT MADE INTERNET SPEEDS AS WELL AS NETFLIX FASTER!!


The problems you’re talking about never existed in the 30 freaking years of the internet’s existence. NN is built for soon to be trillion dollar internet companies, NO ONE ELSE. Google did not write this out of the kindness of their hearts. They realized, o shit, our internet porn searches and streaming make up probably another 3rd of total bandwidth used...let’s save 20 million and have government fight this battle for us. There’s nothing neutral about net neutrality, it’s a misnomer. Google is nothing but a glorified ad company, but with all their algorithms, and the mass collection of YOUR data, they knew how to precisely market this to you people. YOURE BEING DUPED. And you’re arguments for it have ZERO clout since there never was a problem in the first place. Creating a fast lane for Netflix was a GOOD business model. Choking off sites that many like, would be a bad one.

There are great costs that go into bandwidth and internet infrastructure that have to continually keep growing and growing. The power usage of our server farms is outrageous. Internet doesn’t just magically happen, and NN shifted the cost of great bandwidth usages from big internet to the average consumer in their internet bills...big internet can definitely afford the fast lanes...that happen to make internet faster :gasp:

Bingo.

Does it not bother anyone that there are no arguments being passed around? It's all just completely baseless fear mongering. The net neutrality campaign is one of the better propaganda efforts I have seen.

 

[sakinago]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

Not when you have monopolies or oligopolies. In these instances government regulation is required to protect consumers since a competitive, free market does not exist.

Jackweed, NN was made by and for oligopolies, and NN shifted the costs from big internet onto the average consumer. Bandwidth needed for the intense streaming demands of America doesn’t just magically appear. Mass amounts of infrastructure need to be built for it. Infrastructure that costs a lot of money, money that got shifted to the average consumer of the internet...

 

[koshergrl]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

Micromanagement goes on with net neutrality.

Naturally the disingenuous, lying left pretends exactly the opposite.

"in seeking to regulate the internet, these proposals "will jeopardize it -- and stifle further investments by ISPs -- with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace."


"As we have noted previously, “network neutrality” would provide the federal government extensive power to mandate how businesses can provide Internet service to their consumers. Innovation and investment in the Internet has occurred due to an absence of government regulation and interference. Allowing the government to step in to impose mandates on network management would represent a dangerous precedent in terms of Internet regulation and a clear infringement of private property rights by government. "

"Make no mistake: this will result in private industry ceasing to build infrastructure - next step, government steps in to solve the problem it just created with public spending and the necessary control of networks: "Now all your bandwidth are belong to Genachowski"."

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement

Why don't you educate yourself on monopolies. Government regulation is a necessity.

How is it not a monopoly when the govt is the monopoly???

 

[busybee01]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The internet was going to HIGHER SPEEDS, UNLIMITED DATA AND NO THROTTLING before the law was even passed.
In my area alone you could get speeds up to 1000 with no caps or throttling for 90 bucks. BEFORE this law. I opted for 300 for just under 60.

Competition between providers advances customer satisfaction & choices not government intervention.

The trouble is that you don't have competition. ISPs are a monopoly/oligopoly. Remember how Time/Warner Cable got gobbled up by Charter. Government intervention is required when you have no competition. That is why prices have been escalating.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The internet was going to HIGHER SPEEDS, UNLIMITED DATA AND NO THROTTLING before the law was even passed.
In my area alone you could get speeds up to 1000 with no caps or throttling for 90 bucks. BEFORE this law. I opted for 300 for just under 60.

Competition between providers advances customer satisfaction & choices not government intervention.

The trouble is that you don't have competition. ISPs are a monopoly/oligopoly. Remember how Time/Warner Cable got gobbled up by Charter. Government intervention is required when you have no competition. That is why prices have been escalating.

We have anti monopoly regulations already. Enforce them. Much like the immigration bullshit, we don't need new laws, we need consistent enforcement

 

[busybee01]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

Micromanagement goes on with net neutrality.

Naturally the disingenuous, lying left pretends exactly the opposite.

"in seeking to regulate the internet, these proposals "will jeopardize it -- and stifle further investments by ISPs -- with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace."


"As we have noted previously, “network neutrality” would provide the federal government extensive power to mandate how businesses can provide Internet service to their consumers. Innovation and investment in the Internet has occurred due to an absence of government regulation and interference. Allowing the government to step in to impose mandates on network management would represent a dangerous precedent in terms of Internet regulation and a clear infringement of private property rights by government. "

"Make no mistake: this will result in private industry ceasing to build infrastructure - next step, government steps in to solve the problem it just created with public spending and the necessary control of networks: "Now all your bandwidth are belong to Genachowski"."

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement

Why don't you educate yourself on monopolies. Government regulation is a necessity.

How is it not a monopoly when the govt is the monopoly???

When you have a monopoly government is required to step in. That is why the electric companies are regulated by states. Competition provides self-regulation but monopolies do not.

 

[busybee01]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The net neutrality. The companies who have installed, maintained, serviced, and upgraded broadband lines probably should have a say in how they use it...the internet has been the freest market ever in creation. It was just fine before net neutrality. The problem isn’t that the companies have control of their own lines, the problem was that they got government to make sure they were the only ones to lay the lines, eliminating any competition. Now we got the worst broadband in the developed world, and it’s never been because of lack of net neutrality, or that government hasn’t done enough, it’s because government got involved, and they think they can convince us they can solve the very same problems they’ve created, by adding new ones.

The deal is that that Govt is still involved. The FTC can tell any ISP that they are being unfair and make them change. As of today if ATT decided they want to block FoxNews or ABC the FTC could tell them "no you can't do that".

How is the Govt not involved?

AT&T has no business blocking anything. The customer should have the right to go anywhere they please. The government should get involved.

 

[koshergrl]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

Micromanagement goes on with net neutrality.

Naturally the disingenuous, lying left pretends exactly the opposite.

"in seeking to regulate the internet, these proposals "will jeopardize it -- and stifle further investments by ISPs -- with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace."


"As we have noted previously, “network neutrality” would provide the federal government extensive power to mandate how businesses can provide Internet service to their consumers. Innovation and investment in the Internet has occurred due to an absence of government regulation and interference. Allowing the government to step in to impose mandates on network management would represent a dangerous precedent in terms of Internet regulation and a clear infringement of private property rights by government. "

"Make no mistake: this will result in private industry ceasing to build infrastructure - next step, government steps in to solve the problem it just created with public spending and the necessary control of networks: "Now all your bandwidth are belong to Genachowski"."

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement

Why don't you educate yourself on monopolies. Government regulation is a necessity.

How is it not a monopoly when the govt is the monopoly???

When you have a monopoly government is required to step in. That is why the electric companies are regulated by states. Competition provides self-regulation but monopolies do not.

There is no competition when the government has the monopoly.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The net neutrality. The companies who have installed, maintained, serviced, and upgraded broadband lines probably should have a say in how they use it...the internet has been the freest market ever in creation. It was just fine before net neutrality. The problem isn’t that the companies have control of their own lines, the problem was that they got government to make sure they were the only ones to lay the lines, eliminating any competition. Now we got the worst broadband in the developed world, and it’s never been because of lack of net neutrality, or that government hasn’t done enough, it’s because government got involved, and they think they can convince us they can solve the very same problems they’ve created, by adding new ones.

The deal is that that Govt is still involved. The FTC can tell any ISP that they are being unfair and make them change. As of today if ATT decided they want to block FoxNews or ABC the FTC could tell them "no you can't do that".

How is the Govt not involved?

AT&T has no business blocking anything. The customer should have the right to go anywhere they please. The government should get involved.

Actually that is ridiculous. AT&T is a private business and should be allowed to make business decisions based upon what is best for the company.

 

[busybee01]

I have stated my point repeatedly, you are just too partisan to see it. Partisan hacks are not known for their intelligence or open mindedness.

No, you didn't state that point. You just kept parroting the idiocy that the elimination of government micromanagement would result in micromanagement...without justifying or explaining it.

And you still haven't justified it. Your argument just seems to be "everything is micromanagement".

Ok, back to the OP...

Does this sounds like micromanagement or not? A simple yes or no will do.

each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

Since when does the left care about micromanaging? Our federal register page is over 80,000 pages long...and your problem with getting rid of net neutrality (government inserting themselves where they don’t belong, trying to “fix” a problem they created...by not actually fixing it) is that it seems like it’s micromanaging....Dipshit if Comcast wants to charge Netflix extra because their traffic is what accounts for most of their broadband...they should be able to do so. Where were all these problems of so and so wanting to shut out Fox News/CNN/whatever before net neutrality????? They didn’t exist! Net neutrality is a position taken by streaming services, BC they didn’t want to pay more for the traffic their users cause, and they could blame the constant buffering on internet providers. Getting rid of net neutrality actually helps Netflix get the required amount of broadband to deal with their traffic since these companies will obviously allocate the Necessary resources to make sure the streaming happens smoothly (if they want to keep their customers). I don’t think FTC needs to give a thumbs up or down on stuff (really this was just to shut up the people crying about net neutrality who don’t know what they’re talking about), but I certainly prefer that over net neutrality.

Again 80,000 pages of regulation, you need a license for almost everything, and then have to fill out 12 forms before you can wipe your own ass, while you plug in your government approved LED lightbulb...and this is what you care about???

The left does not care about micromanaging, but I do not know what that has to do with me or this thread.

So...you’re defending a bill, that was created by google for google (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon), that petitioned government to not let ISPs have control of their broadband pathways they spent billions investing in..,and you’re claiming the alternative to that bill(this bill has only been around 2 years), which is rolling back two years ago, and government staying out of the way of multi billion dollar corporations fueds...a feud that actually made Netflix (who was using a full THIRD OF ALL BANDWITH) streaming service better. Somehow that (having government come in to help out soon to be trillion dollar Corp google) is not micromanaging to you...but getting government out of the way when it comes to ISPs having control of the ISP billion dollar infastrure they built is....just because people were crying about a problem THAT NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (since it would be a terrible business model to choke off sites), so FTC says we won’t let Verizon/Comcast/etc. choke out Fox News/ CNN/Porn hub/ etc. Again there’s 80,000 pages of regulation...and this is what you’re complaining about?

Believe me, I have no love for ISPs. The reason our internet sucks but is still super expensive compared to the rest of the world, is that they went to government, to get regulation passed in their favor, to get rid of competition....just like google with net neutrality. And instead of addressing that issue, getting government to stop choking out competition in ISPs, your answer is more government involvement, not even addressing the original problems in the first place.

There was nothing neutral about net neutrality. The internet is probably the least regulated industry in existence, and is a shining example of what the free market system is capable of...when you leave it alone. So instead of having billion dollar corps, tattling on each other, and having government fight their battles for them...we should be telling government, get the F out of the way, the leaders at these corps are smarter than 90% of you law makers and officials anyway, let them figure it out, and let the people vote on with their dollars on what they like better.

What you fail to realize is that we are dealing with a monopoly. The rules are different for a monopoly. Many communities have only 1 ISP. Electric companies are regulated by states so they do not have control of their infrastructure. As a result consumers cannot vote with their dollars.

In many ways ISPs are a natural monopoly. Presently it takes a pipeline made up of physical wiring. The reason that prices are high is because of this monopoly. Do you think the rest of the world allows ISPs to run wild with no regulation? ISPs are subject to the same economic rules as any other company. When you have no competition, prices go up.

The government has a place in this. Regulate monopolies just as they would the electric company. Net neutrality did address a problem that was brewing. ISPs did do some throttling on a limited basis. They have been trying to figure out how to squeeze more money out of their monopoly by buying out their peers. All that stood in their way was net neutrality. Also the fact that ISPs are trying to get content also creates conflicts of interest. Comcast already owns Universal. and AT&T wants Warner. They control the pipelines that allow consumers to access Warner and vice versa with Universal. This is called consumer protection which is a foreign language to this administration.

 

[busybee01]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The net neutrality. The companies who have installed, maintained, serviced, and upgraded broadband lines probably should have a say in how they use it...the internet has been the freest market ever in creation. It was just fine before net neutrality. The problem isn’t that the companies have control of their own lines, the problem was that they got government to make sure they were the only ones to lay the lines, eliminating any competition. Now we got the worst broadband in the developed world, and it’s never been because of lack of net neutrality, or that government hasn’t done enough, it’s because government got involved, and they think they can convince us they can solve the very same problems they’ve created, by adding new ones.

The deal is that that Govt is still involved. The FTC can tell any ISP that they are being unfair and make them change. As of today if ATT decided they want to block FoxNews or ABC the FTC could tell them "no you can't do that".

How is the Govt not involved?

AT&T has no business blocking anything. The customer should have the right to go anywhere they please. The government should get involved.

Actually that is ridiculous. AT&T is a private business and should be allowed to make business decisions based upon what is best for the company.

AT&T is a monopoly and should either be regulated or broken up with the other ISPs like Comcast.

 

[busybee01]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

You never made a point.
In fact, this is the closest you've come in any of our exchanges to actually supporting your idiocy.

I have stated my point repeatedly, you are just too partisan to see it. Partisan hacks are not known for their intelligence or open mindedness.

No, you didn't state that point. You just kept parroting the idiocy that the elimination of government micromanagement would result in micromanagement...without justifying or explaining it.

And you still haven't justified it. Your argument just seems to be "everything is micromanagement".

What we have explained, more than once, is that “net neutrality” was lost when providers recently gained the ability to send some signals faster than others. Websites which pay extra load faster. Those that don’t pay extra can now be made to load slower.

Obama’a Net Neutrality regulations prevented ISP’s from selling this service to commercial sites requiring everything to load at equal speed. Now that NN is lost, you will see sites which don’t pay extra, slowing down. Those that pay more will speed up.

I actually have nothing against ISPs selling even faster internet for a higher price, However others who cannot pay should not be slowed down. There are many non-commercial websites that will be impacted. This will create a digital divide between the upper class and middle.

 

[busybee01]

-+*

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

Not when you have monopolies or oligopolies. In these instances government regulation is required to protect consumers since a competitive, free market does not exist.

Jackweed, NN was made by and for oligopolies, and NN shifted the costs from big internet onto the average consumer. Bandwidth needed for the intense streaming demands of America doesn’t just magically appear. Mass amounts of infrastructure need to be built for it. Infrastructure that costs a lot of money, money that got shifted to the average consumer of the internet...

You are the corporate parrot. The fact is that not 1 ISP has ever claimed that they are refusing to build up their networks due to net neutrality. They are more interested in propping up their stock prices. That means that low end consumers will lose out to high end consumers. We are seeing that in the housing market. The affordability of housing is under siege as more developers concentrate on high end housing than affordable housing., ISPs are not going to build more infrastructure. They will increase the speeds of those who can pay and slow down those who can't.

 

[busybee01]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

Micromanagement goes on with net neutrality.

Naturally the disingenuous, lying left pretends exactly the opposite.

"in seeking to regulate the internet, these proposals "will jeopardize it -- and stifle further investments by ISPs -- with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace."


"As we have noted previously, “network neutrality” would provide the federal government extensive power to mandate how businesses can provide Internet service to their consumers. Innovation and investment in the Internet has occurred due to an absence of government regulation and interference. Allowing the government to step in to impose mandates on network management would represent a dangerous precedent in terms of Internet regulation and a clear infringement of private property rights by government. "

"Make no mistake: this will result in private industry ceasing to build infrastructure - next step, government steps in to solve the problem it just created with public spending and the necessary control of networks: "Now all your bandwidth are belong to Genachowski"."

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement

Why don't you educate yourself on monopolies. Government regulation is a necessity.

How is it not a monopoly when the govt is the monopoly???

When you have a monopoly government is required to step in. That is why the electric companies are regulated by states. Competition provides self-regulation but monopolies do not.

There is no competition when the government has the monopoly.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Government is a necessity while private monopolies are not.

 

[koshergrl]

Micromanagement goes on with net neutrality.

Naturally the disingenuous, lying left pretends exactly the opposite.

"in seeking to regulate the internet, these proposals "will jeopardize it -- and stifle further investments by ISPs -- with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace."


"As we have noted previously, “network neutrality” would provide the federal government extensive power to mandate how businesses can provide Internet service to their consumers. Innovation and investment in the Internet has occurred due to an absence of government regulation and interference. Allowing the government to step in to impose mandates on network management would represent a dangerous precedent in terms of Internet regulation and a clear infringement of private property rights by government. "

"Make no mistake: this will result in private industry ceasing to build infrastructure - next step, government steps in to solve the problem it just created with public spending and the necessary control of networks: "Now all your bandwidth are belong to Genachowski"."

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement

Why don't you educate yourself on monopolies. Government regulation is a necessity.

How is it not a monopoly when the govt is the monopoly???

When you have a monopoly government is required to step in. That is why the electric companies are regulated by states. Competition provides self-regulation but monopolies do not.

There is no competition when the government has the monopoly.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Government is a necessity while private monopolies are not.

I didn't say government wasn't a necessity.

I said a government monopoly is still a monopoly.

Monopolies that arise out of the free market can at least be challenged by individuals with chutzpah.

You can't challenge a government monopoly because to do so is ILLEGAL.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why don't you educate yourself on monopolies. Government regulation is a necessity.

How is it not a monopoly when the govt is the monopoly???

When you have a monopoly government is required to step in. That is why the electric companies are regulated by states. Competition provides self-regulation but monopolies do not.

There is no competition when the government has the monopoly.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Government is a necessity while private monopolies are not.

I didn't say government wasn't a necessity.

I said a government monopoly is still a monopoly.

Monopolies that arise out of the free market can at least be challenged by individuals with chutzpah.

You can't challenge a government monopoly because to do so is ILLEGAL.

Forgive me for asking, but what exactly is a "government monopoly"?

 

[koshergrl]

How is it not a monopoly when the govt is the monopoly???

When you have a monopoly government is required to step in. That is why the electric companies are regulated by states. Competition provides self-regulation but monopolies do not.

There is no competition when the government has the monopoly.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Government is a necessity while private monopolies are not.

I didn't say government wasn't a necessity.

I said a government monopoly is still a monopoly.

Monopolies that arise out of the free market can at least be challenged by individuals with chutzpah.

You can't challenge a government monopoly because to do so is ILLEGAL.

Forgive me for asking, but what exactly is a "government monopoly"?

I forgive you for asking. You were probably educated in a government school, which explains your confusion over the common terms used in the discussions you choose to participate in.

"The most prominent example of a state the monopoly is law and the legitimate use of physical force.[1] In many countries, the postal system is run by the government with competition forbidden by law in some or all services. Also, government monopolies on public utilities, telecommunications and railroads have historically been common, though recent decades have seen a strong privatization trend throughout the industrialized world.

"In Nordic countries some goods deemed harmful are distributed through a government monopoly. For example, in Finland, Iceland, Norwayand Sweden, government-owned companies have monopolies for selling alcoholic beverages. Casinos and other institutions for gamblingmight also be monopolized. In Finland, the government has also a monopoly to operate slot machines.

"Governments often create or allow monopolies to exist and grant them patents. This limits entry and allow the patent-holding firm to earn a monopoly profit from an invention.

"Health care systems where the government controls the industry and specifically prohibits competition, such as in Canada, are government monopolies.[2]
State monopoly - Wikipedia

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When you have a monopoly government is required to step in. That is why the electric companies are regulated by states. Competition provides self-regulation but monopolies do not.

There is no competition when the government has the monopoly.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Government is a necessity while private monopolies are not.

I didn't say government wasn't a necessity.

I said a government monopoly is still a monopoly.

Monopolies that arise out of the free market can at least be challenged by individuals with chutzpah.

You can't challenge a government monopoly because to do so is ILLEGAL.

Forgive me for asking, but what exactly is a "government monopoly"?

I forgive you for asking. You were probably educated in a government school, which explains your confusion over the common terms used in the discussions you choose to participate in.

"The most prominent example of a state the monopoly is law and the legitimate use of physical force.[1] In many countries, the postal system is run by the government with competition forbidden by law in some or all services. Also, government monopolies on public utilities, telecommunications and railroads have historically been common, though recent decades have seen a strong privatization trend throughout the industrialized world.

"In Nordic countries some goods deemed harmful are distributed through a government monopoly. For example, in Finland, Iceland, Norwayand Sweden, government-owned companies have monopolies for selling alcoholic beverages. Casinos and other institutions for gamblingmight also be monopolized. In Finland, the government has also a monopoly to operate slot machines.

"Governments often create or allow monopolies to exist and grant them patents. This limits entry and allow the patent-holding firm to earn a monopoly profit from an invention.

"Health care systems where the government controls the industry and specifically prohibits competition, such as in Canada, are government monopolies.[2]
State monopoly - Wikipedia

Do we have any of those in this country?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com