Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[DiveCon]

Seriously? Your're not old enough to remember long distance charges?

I'm old enough to remember long distance charges, but you had to make a long distance call to incur the charge back then. Now, if you don't make many long distance calls you are charged an UNDER USE FEE. That's Right, someone has to pay a long distance charge for NOT making long distance calls!!!!

no, they can opt out

 

[shintao]

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

I don't use AOL, but here would be an example.

Your AOL Network information is used to operate and improve the Web sites, services and offerings available through the AOL Network; to personalize the content and advertisements provided to you; to fulfill your requests for products, programs, and services; to communicate with you and respond to your inquiries; to conduct research about your use of the AOL Network; and to help offer you other products, programs, or services that may be of interest.

 

[shintao]

Yeah, they tested the drop in your current to see if you had more than one phone, then charged you for it, because government told them to!

A serious problem for phones is availability of numbers. I just started up a new phone service and found out all the numbers have had previous users. They just recycle the freed up numbers again and again. Problem is, I get about 5 calls a day from creditors from the previous users who must have been fraudsters. And I put the do not call list on the phone as well, no help.


What I would like is a program where I could enter the only numbers that are allowed to contact me. All other numbers would be rejected until I personally add them to my phone. And the same idea of my email, only the addresses I enter, and the rest are rejected.

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.

 

[DiveCon]

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

I don't use AOL, but here would be an example.

Your AOL Network information is used to operate and improve the Web sites, services and offerings available through the AOL Network; to personalize the content and advertisements provided to you; to fulfill your requests for products, programs, and services; to communicate with you and respond to your inquiries; to conduct research about your use of the AOL Network; and to help offer you other products, programs, or services that may be of interest.

do you realize that AOL started out as an online service, not an internet access provider?
and when they started offering internet access, a lot of it was them mirroring the real sites and not actual access?
once they had to face actual competition for internet access, they pretty much lost all their customers to either smaller ISP startups or to the major communication companies
keep the government out of it and if a company tries to limit access, another company will start up to offer open access

 

[Revere]

there is nothing wrong with the internet, except that the federal gov. cannot find a way to get their mitts on it to make money; fees and taxes AND control, because thats what government does.

Mark my words- if this flys and the FCC get its hands into it, check your internet billing a year or so down the road, I guarantee you, that you will be paying more and getting less.

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?

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

 

[DiveCon]

A serious problem for phones is availability of numbers. I just started up a new phone service and found out all the numbers have had previous users. They just recycle the freed up numbers again and again. Problem is, I get about 5 calls a day from creditors from the previous users who must have been fraudsters. And I put the do not call list on the phone as well, no help.


What I would like is a program where I could enter the only numbers that are allowed to contact me. All other numbers would be rejected until I personally add them to my phone. And the same idea of my email, only the addresses I enter, and the rest are rejected.

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.

as for the "junk email" until POP4 comes out, you are stuck with it
thats if POP4 ever comes out

 

[Synthaholic]

A serious problem for phones is availability of numbers. I just started up a new phone service and found out all the numbers have had previous users. They just recycle the freed up numbers again and again. Problem is, I get about 5 calls a day from creditors from the previous users who must have been fraudsters. And I put the do not call list on the phone as well, no help.


What I would like is a program where I could enter the only numbers that are allowed to contact me. All other numbers would be rejected until I personally add them to my phone. And the same idea of my email, only the addresses I enter, and the rest are rejected.

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.

 

[Revere]

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.

An example of innovation you can kiss goodbye when everyone sells the same internet product, as directed by government.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

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

 

[RDD_1210]

Read about airline regulation, son.

Everyone was "neutral" then.

Airline Deregulation: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Airfares, when adjusted for inflation, have fallen 25 percent since 1991, and, according to Clifford Winston and Steven Morrison of the Brookings Institution, are 22 percent lower than they would have been had regulation continued (Morrison and Winston 2000). Since passenger deregulation in 1978, airline prices have fallen 44.9 percent in real terms according to the Air Transport Association. Robert Crandall and Jerry Ellig (1997) estimated that when figures are adjusted for changes in quality and amenities, passengers save $19.4 billion dollars per year from airline deregulation. These savings have been passed on to 80 percent of passengers accounting for 85 percent of passenger miles. The real benefits of airline deregulation are being felt today as never before, with LCCs increasingly gaining market share.

The dollar savings are a direct result of allowing airlines the freedom to innovate in routes and pricing. After deregulation, the airlines quickly moved to a hub-and-spoke system, whereby an airline selected some airport (the hub) as the destination point for flights from a number of origination cities (the spokes). Because the size of the planes used varied according to the travel on that spoke, and since hubs allowed passenger travel to be consolidated in “transfer stations,” capacity utilization (“load factors”) increased, allowing fare reduction. The hub-and-spoke model survives among the legacy carriers, but the LCCs—now 30 percent of the market—typically fly point to point. The network hubs model offers consumers more convenience for routes, but point-to-point routes have proven less costly for airlines to implement. Over time, the legacy carriers and the LCCs will likely use some combination of point-to-point and network hubs to capture both economies of scope and pricing advantages.

And how does this relate to Net Neutrality? Specifically.

 

[RDD_1210]

there is nothing wrong with the internet, except that the federal gov. cannot find a way to get their mitts on it to make money; fees and taxes AND control, because thats what government does.

Mark my words- if this flys and the FCC get its hands into it, check your internet billing a year or so down the road, I guarantee you, that you will be paying more and getting less.

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.

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

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?

 

[Claudette]

The internet ain't broke and I'm damned sure we don't need Uncle Sam to regulate or fix it.

Jeeze.

 

[RDD_1210]

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

 

[RDD_1210]

The internet ain't broke and I'm damned sure we don't need Uncle Sam to regulate or fix it.

Jeeze.

Exactly, lets keep it the way it is. Net Neutrality.


Jeeze.

 

[liebuster]

I don't get those people that think its OK for the FCC to just declare they have the authority.

Congress wouldn't do it, so the FCC said we will do it. They got sued and a judge said they can't do it and they said they're going to do it anyways????

This is the problem with creating federal entities. They start out small then end up by-passing congress and the courts. What makes you think the FCC is going to stop at net neutrality?

Its a slippery slope.

 

[daveman]

The internet ain't broke and I'm damned sure we don't need Uncle Sam to regulate or fix it.

Jeeze.

Exactly, lets keep it the way it is. Net Neutrality.


Jeeze.

You need a law to fix a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[Trajan]

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".

wth??
If thats all you got out of what I wrote, well, what can I say. frankly your response makes it appear to me you don't have a handle on this at all. I am not even sure if you know how broadband et al operates.

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

then you don't need the FCC introducing itself into the equation.

 

[Ava]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) submitted a rider yesterday to a bill on military and veterans' construction projects. The rider would, 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards.' It is co-signed by six other Republican senators

Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality - Slashdot

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, says Federal Communications Commission should be renamed the "Fabricating a Crisis Commission," following a vote by the panel's three Democrats to approve proposed rules that amount to a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency acting illegally.

DeMint vows to reverse FCC's 'Internet takeover' | Washington Examiner

SNIP:


If the FCC plan somehow manages to survive, it will almost certainly do for First Amendment liberties and the Internet what it did for them in regulating broadcast television and radio. Former CBS News president Fred Friendly's landmark book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment," describes in great detail how the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used the FCC to silence conservative critics.

 

[Trajan]

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

and yet the FCC is now going ahead and basically givings itself an in to do just what comcast fought.