I've sat back and watched the net neutrality debate. I've watched the Republicans basically leave the field without a shot in anger and I've come to one realization.
This is all a play to get more money for the govt.
Think about it. The President has the idea of providing internet access to every American. Ok. Sounds reasonable until you look at the last time an initiative like this was put forward. Remember phones?
This is about money. Its about gifts to constituents and its about more control for the US govt over a part of the economy they currently have little sway over.
Whats coming in the future? Internet sales taxes. Fees for internet transactions. Regulations on what can and can't be said.
The internet was doing fine. Watch it break with govt involvement.
Concur.
ReplyDeleteWith a few exceptions I think the politicians are all one party and the republican and democrat thing is just to give the illusion that there is a choice.
ReplyDeleteRelevant Rant accepted. There needs to be a compromise plan, one which will protect customers and citizens against both corporate manipulation, abuses and controls... and also Federal govt exploitation of new regulatory powers to hike prices (taxes/revenue) and to increase controls (and anti-privacy, etc).
ReplyDeleteA compromise solution - taking the best aspects from both proposals while rejecting the negative aspects from both - and more analysis of the situation is needed.
this is the perfect example of where free markets are absolutely the best solution. if cable companies get out of hand with prices then there should be no effort to keep new players out of the market place. thats what you already have which explains why cable rates are so high and most people don't give a damn about this issue. i should have access to at least 5 different companies that are competing for my business. instead i only have two. one a cable company the other a sat. thats' the problem. we haven't tried real free markets.
ReplyDeleteagreed. i was stunned by how quickly the Republicans...the people i helped put in office rolled over on this.
ReplyDeleteonce again the average man is being screwed by the govt. revolutions have started with fewer grievances than many now have.
ReplyDeletenews report
ReplyDeleteU.S. Officially Ends Special Operations Task Force in the Philippines, Some Advisors May Remain
Wow.. if the Obama gov did one thing right it was this attempt to safeguard 'Net Neutrality'.
ReplyDeleteIt took a lot of convincing and I doubt it came from the heart, but they did it.
I did not expect some so active on the net to not understand the dangers of letting providers charge money to people like you, to upload at a normal rate.
Wile I am no fan of Obama, it seems some people hate him so much they are blinded by it and see everything his administration does as bad..
Internet providers make stupendous amounts of money from US, we pay them to get access to the net. It would be a crime to allow them to charge us twice! If they are allowed to blackmail..I mean charge uploaders, websites, the services we use fees just so they can send their information to us at a decent rate, on top of already paying the normal fee, in the end these costs would end up with us, the users.
Take a little look at this, so you can see how Comcast literally blackmailed Netflicks in to cutting them in:
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/
Your rant misses the boat in so many ways.. you worry about taxes? Why? Because they make internet services more expensive? Guess what breaking net neutrality does......
You wonder about censorship? What do you think Net Neutrality prevents? Indeed: it prevents money determining how much of a say we all have on this here internet! It prevents rich special interest being able to pay a provider to choke the opposition to death. It for instance prevents Lockheed Martin from deciding you, Solomon, are such a big threat its worth paying providers so they limit your upload to a trickle..
Un-bloody-believable...
And we cant try real free market with internet....
ReplyDeleteWhat do you want ? 500 different cables to every house, 200 satellites, 2000 antenna's?
Providers own their hardware and have a huge advantage over newcomers that would have to spend a multitude of what they can ever make to compete. What you are left with is an automatic monopoly. Monopolies without regulations in the end become corporate shadow governments.
And why do you think that is?
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the numbers on these grassroots movements to protect Net Neutrality?
Some of the largest non profit organisations in this field, Wikipedia, Firefox, aswell as some of the largest companies, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft all made a big effort to explain the dangers of what was and still is happening. They got the support of millions of users.. it was even bigger then the petition to get the Kardashians back on tv.... go figure..
so on one hand you criticize my point of view and on the other hand you admit that we don't have fee markets in the cable provider field. instead of lamenting that fact and decide that perhaps a real free market would lure people like Google, microsoft and others into the game you default to this is one area that we dare not change so instead regulate it?
ReplyDeleteamazing.
I criticize ONE thing: your failure to support Net Neutrality.
ReplyDeleteEverything else is fluff. If you want a total free and level playing field for providers: go for it.. and see it fail.. I don't particularly care.. as long as these providers do not get to determine what and how fast I get to see and as long as thye do not get to charge me twice for the same product!
So lay all the cables you want, but do not link free market or the absense there of to Net Neutrality!
so you believe that the govt arrives and its here to help? using 1930 regulations to help deal with a 21st century issue. the same govt is going to regulate the internet has failed to even setup its healthcare website, get a handle on its deficit spending and is so wrecked by corruption that its barely functional is going to regulate the internet?
ReplyDeletegeez. how gullible are you?
Corporations with monopoly or duopoly positions are not the friends of the consumer. I pay $80/month for a service level that cost about $30 in RoK or Sweden. I prefer not to get screwed, but the cost for a non-subsidized competitor to enter the market is too great. So let the gov't to break the barriers and build the infrastructure, then allow regulated contractors to provide the service. Problem solved: no exploitive legacy carrier, and a level playing field for ISPs.
ReplyDeletecraziness. you avoid the issues that i raise and instead default to a position of pure stupidity. fine. this "discussion", "debate" or whatever is over. you have no points just a desire to push govt regs into a realm of our lives where it hasn't been.
ReplyDeleteand you're insane enough to believe that the govt will make the situation better, not worse.
that is so fucking stupid i won't even bother to reply to you anymore.
You get it! I am Dutch, my wife is American , since we both are big in to computers, internet and games we compared ISP's many times. The conclusion could not be clearer. The regulated Dutch market has more competition, she only had 3 choices we had over a dozen back then. The speed and reliability was much greater over here and it cost half as much.
ReplyDeleteGo figure..
But, let me warn you all, don't let this comparison distract you , it is a different subject. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with competition between ISP's or with quality. It is a founding and guiding principle of the Internet that goes far beyond any such thing.
All I got to say is that in a supposed open free society ran by the people for the people, we just saw the passing of a law that no one has seen or so far is been allowed to see in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteYou can give anything a squishy warm fuzzy name, but the fact is that with this and the Healthcare law before we have set a president that laws can be approved and implemented before we peasants are even allowed to know what they are. If we have reached the point of society were we have given so much power to our "betters" our modern noble class that we don't even think it necessary to require the basis of open public regulations we are done, dead, conquered defeated. Did anyone read enough American history to understand why one of the main requirements/gripes of the founders was "written law"?
Maybe this new rule book is good, maybe its a horror, maybe the next fuzzy named question mark regulation will be the one that gets US, maybe not. But with this new standard we have opened the door with legal president to institute horrors our fourfathers fled.
This is a sad sad day in america. Welcome back to the feudal age covered in communist rhetoric.
Net Neutrality was the norm under Bush sr, under Clinton, under Bush jr for the longest. This has nothing to do with partisan thing, it is not even a new rule. It is reaffirming an old one.
ReplyDeleteSolomon I am very disappointed in you!
ReplyDeleteYOU named your rant one about NET NEUTRALITY. No one else.
Al I did is ask you to ignore the non sense surrounding it and to discus THAT!
I nowhere avoided any issue, I actually addressed it ALSO and everyone reading this can see that.
Basic government regulation is necessary, you were in the Marines..so you know rules are needed, I assume you drive a car and do not run in to other cars where ever you go. Over regulation is NOT GOOD and certainly not something I want, so do not try to make me in to something I am not.
I would like to believe better, but it seems you just refused to discuss because you know you have no leg to stand on.
Shame!
shame nothing. you described free markets in Denmark and how you had so many providers then you state that we can't have the same in the US...even though you readily admit that competition drove down internet rates!
ReplyDeleteyet somehow you decouple net neutrality from that and contend that govt regulation for an enterprise that has been wildly successful is necessary...even though it will not provide consumers relief from overpriced internet fees.
oh and never compare business models to the military. one is funded to protect a nation, the other is designed to provide profits to shareholders.
Governments always fail to set up complex systems..in the US, over here.. everywhere.. some systems might actually be worth the mahem... but that certainly is not the point here.
ReplyDeleteNet Neutrality is not a complex law, a complex system, it is a simple rule that has worked EVER SINCE THE INTERNET WAS INVENTED. There is no need for Obama to invent any wheel and fail..
You misread, or I was not clear. We have much more competition because of government regulation. The government simply ordered providers to let competition use their hardware for a fair fee. That way many providers can compete using only a few cables and such.
ReplyDeleteBut don't get me wrong, I don't care if the USA does it the same way or not, to everyone their own and what works works.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with ISPs competing, we have the same rule, everyone in the world does but a few backwater nations like North Korea.
It did not stop our providers competing.
It simply is a rule to protect US , the users and to provide a level, fair , playingield for open discussion. I think I am going to look up the exact definition of Net Neutrality now..
Let me please point out that Net Neutrality also applies to the government, they, like the providers, should not hinder the equality we all have on this wonderful medium.
ReplyDelete"governments should treat all data on the Internet equally"
Now.. if this regulation or any law by Obama or anyone says differently, or advocates something else then it is not Net Neutrality. Rant away about laws and failed Obama care all you want.. But this rant is specifically about Net Neutrality and it should not be. That is like ranting about the principle of eating because you don't like a particular type of food.
I agree with this. I dont trust corporate giants any more than I do government (and im most cases, even less so).
ReplyDeleteMy concern, HOWEVER, is the devil in the details regarding this bill. Given our government's history of recent legislation, Im certain that it will strengthen the position of monopolies, not do anything to compromise their profit.
You have no idea what the law is and no idea if it will help or hurt what you speak of nobody does. Besides you have just traded one dictator that through public education and action could have been checked by switching to their competition companies that lose money don't last. But now we have a new "benign" "fuzzy""all knowing" "noble" "better than US peasants" government chosen/appointed regulators that you me everyone will now live under regardless, with no other option.
ReplyDeleteThe road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Odd question, back some short time ago when comcast first started attempting this metering why did they decide to shelve it? Was it gov regulation or was it that people got wind, and the outcry was enough to wake even anticustomerservice comcast up to the reality they were gonna lose market share over that policy?
The market works and would have worked if Comcast did institute what they whispered. I would have switched as sounds like you and many others. I would have told as many as possible why their netflix was slow and I wager you would have to. Not fast not by dictate but regardless the market would have corrected itself by natural order, just like in nature that is why it works. Now instead we get big brother our beautiful all knowing elite betters to dictate with NO OPTION OUT, to US peasants, no alternative but comply or turn off.
I repeat.... The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A) the haven't shelved it.
ReplyDeleteB) comcast has been very successful with metering content providers, so far they've forced all of them to cave and pay
C) There is no market. There are however lots of monopolies, and if that's working for ya...
I suggest you educate yourself about the history before you go off on another rank filled with outright falsehood and ignorance.
A little tip: go on the internet and look for a program that lets you trace the rout your data takes. Often times it hops over so many different providers that changing your provider does not actually help. You, or I cannot choose to route our Net flicks movie like we would chose a road to take to avoid traffic jams .. or toll-roads..in our cars.
ReplyDeleteYou mean the 1930s regulations that gave us the telephone, TV, and the Internet in the first place? You've obviously been reading too much Verizon propaganda if you are bringing up the 1930s in the first place Solomon (whether you realize it or not).
ReplyDeleteI won't even get into how all the providers are already USING Title II regulations whenever it provides them with an advantage (which is basically daily!).
Or the fact that the Internet has been regulated under Title II for the majority of its life and actually has a minority of time without Title II regulation, and the time without Title II regulation saw a sharp reduction in providers and increases in monopoly power of the remaining providers.
Don't believe the marketing BS from Verizon and their ILK. The Internet was born under Title II, it thrived under Title II, it ran into major issues when Title II was removed.
It is certainly possible the government will muck this up, and if that is Solomons problem with this then I might even agree. Until now it seems he has a problem with the principle of Net Neutrality itself.
ReplyDeleteNet neutrality worked, simple rule, simple to enforce, until some ignorant or biased Judge stopped the FCC from enforcing it. That needs to be fixed!
I frankly don't give a bleep about how they do it, about the nonsense that comes with new rules or bills, I just want them to FIX IT and fix it well, long term and clear.
Cables are not the future. The future of internet is wireless my personal opinion. Regardless cables are a huge sunk cost that is a advantage and disadvantage. For instance Google is currently adding fiber with BLAZING speeds that comcast cannot match unless they rerun all their lines. So as tech changes the lines must change hence rendering that advantage into a disadvantage pending on were you are with those sunk cost turning into net positives. Just like your car/house those sunk cost are repaid over a period of amortization.
ReplyDeleteBottom line if comcast does bad business it is just a matter of time before a new upstart even a less performing upstart comes steals their business. In contrast if the gov does bad business via regulations their is no way to escape just conform or learn a loop hole to exist albeit on a quasi criminal state.
It sadly is rather easy to 'change the truth' if you have enough money to do so.
ReplyDeleteRefer a bit to Obamacare, conjure up the ever present ( at times rightly so) ghost of big government and overegulations.. Pay a senator here and a congressman there.. The networks are always willing to oblige and spread your manure over already fertile soil.
And suddenly it is not about Net Neutrality anymore, at least not about the old principle.. it is about some Kenian trying to steal your freedom.
Two groups love socialism and all the regulations it brings, the Super Rich and the worthless. In basic simple form there must always be a ruling/managerial portion so the Super Rich get their position/children s positions enshrined (how or were is it possible in a socialist system for a peasant cog to rise to a leadership cog position?), then finally you have the worthless that well they have nothing to lose so why not. We are on the precipice and much closer than most realize how do you think we get such anti capitalist idiocy as "to big to fail" for companies that with out doubt failed by doing bad business.
ReplyDeleteThe backbone of america the middle class has no representation and we are under assault on all fronts. They fear US because even with the mob hordes backing them they wouldn't survive a insurrection of the middle hence the need for gun control (anti- sword resistance) and PC speech demagoguery (anti- diplomatic resistance).
Cables, transmitter-towers, satellites, it does not really matter. All are very expensive and lead to monopolies. The only way a newcomer can compete is with very deep pockets and better technology, otherwise it is too easy for the old company to lower prices temporarily to get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteYour bottom line is, sadly, been proven untrue. ISP's like comcast DID get away with blackmailing Netflicks and others. Consumers did not move to a new provider.
Don't forget : they often can't.. they have contracts and only very limited choice between ISP's who all do exactly the same blackmail.
The other problem is knowledge, most average internet users simply do not know what is going on. They blame Netflicks for their slow movie, not their ISP! It was not Comcast who got all the complaints, lost customers it was Netflicks hens their decision to give in.
Of course Netflicks could have instead spend a fortune on a publicity war with the ISP's, but that cost even more then paying.
In conclusion: reality favors ISP's in this fight and not you or me!
And non of this has one iota to do with Net Neutrality..
ReplyDeleteNOT ALL RULES ARE SOCIALISM!
NOT ALL RULES ARE WRONG!
There is rules that are needed so society can function Net Neutrality is one such rule.
You somehow make capitalism the opposite of rules and regulations as if capitalism does not function according to its own set of rules. I like capitalism myself. I am a big believer in capitalism, democracy and freedom, but I am also a realist. Like there is overregulation there also is capitalism gone wild, also known as monopolies..
I pose this to you: without a government , with its rules and regulations there is no modern capitalism. Impossible, we would not get far beyond me trading my apple for your egg, that is if your egg was not stolen first.
It is time for bed.. 5 hours ago.. so let me put this thought in your head before I leave..
ReplyDeleteWithout Net Neutrality ISP's can and will charge content providers for uploading their content at a normal speed. I type this on a site, a blog ran by an amateur who can have a site like this because he does not have to pay extra to compete with Yahoo, the New York Times or the national lottery..
Not yet...
more bullshit. i don't have to pay for this site NOW. without net neutrality! so what is net neutrality getting me? additionally you don't understand how this blog and others like it are monetized. when i have content that gets more eyeballs to the page, i get more from google for the ads you see on the side....AND more importantly Google in turn not only sends me a few pennies but they also move my blog closer to the top of search results which means that my site gets more exposure.
ReplyDeletenet neutrality will end up pushing my blog back to the bottom of search results and all these high rez pics that are on my page will soon start costing me money. so NO. big brother isn't doing a thing to help me.
BUT ONCE AGAIN AND YOU"RE TAKING A FREE MARKET SOLUTION AND SURMISING THAT A REGULATION FROM THE GOVT WILL MAKE EVERYTHING OK.
A strange coincidence.....maybe not. The last time I read a media upheaval about Net Neutrality it was when the previous season of House of Cards had just been released and was "clogging" up Bandwidth. House of Cards just released today and another debate follows.
ReplyDeleteIn any case there is only 1 rule on the Internet........and you know exactly what I am talking about...................Rule 34.
There is not much that Republicans could have done to stop the vote. In fact, both Republicans on the panel voted against it.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why they can't do much "now" is that this was just a vote that says "the FCC will do SOMETHING". No regulations have changes, no new ones are in place, and no details are available because none exist.
What they CAN do is draft a bill that will limit what the FCC will be allowed to regulate going forward. Will the Big'O sign it? Who knows, it depends on what it says.
Everyone on the FCC panel has had the proposed changes in writing for the past 30 days for review as is standard for any FCC proposal. As has been standard for decades.
ReplyDeleteAnd as is now standard FCC practice for decades, they will take the proposed changes, double check everything and post the rules within 30 days. This is a practice that is decades old.
And its not even certain that any bill proposed can even make it out of congress let alone through Obama. There are significant conservative and republican blocks that are strongly in favor of Net Neutrality and the action taken by the FCC. AKA, its not really a partisan issue, its a consumer issue.
Um, you have it backwards Solomon. In fact, there have already been numerous examples of ISPs testing out technology to place their ads in content provided by others via deep packet inspection.
ReplyDeleteAnd Net Neutrality will have no effect on your position in google search results. Nor in the cost for you to run this blog. Google search results are based off of relevancy and have no correlation with advertising revenue. The costs you pay for hosting are basically unaffected except in a positive way by net neutrality. The simple fact that the company, that hosts and runs you blog, is in full support of the rule change made by the FCC today. They are in support of it because they don't want to have to pay ISPs like comcast for what comcast customers already pay for.
And lets not fall into the fallacy of believing that anything to do with the ISP markets has anything to do with an actual free market. The ISPs already use various aspects of Title II regulations, they operate with monopoly power in the majority of their service areas, and prevent actual competition at every turn.
C_Low, you might have an argument if but for one simple thing. The process by which the ISPs were switched a couple of years ago from Title II to Title I was exactly the same. No laws were passed. A classification change was made.
ReplyDeleteYes that's right, all of the ISPs that are astro-turfing the internet with all their might against Title II were under Title II just a few short years ago. And the process by which they switched to Title I was exactly the same as they are being switched back to Title II. And they only have their own actions to blame for being switched back to Title II.
And it is fully within the law for the FCC to decide on classifications for service. No law was created over this. In fact, the Law was followed completely in this ruling. The FCC was employing its powers as GRANTED and REQUIRED BY CONGRESS.
Solomon, we have tried free markets and still are in a free market. If anything, the changes lower the bar for market entry.
ReplyDeleteYou only have two providers because the barriers for entry are so high. Title II actually in many regards lowers the barriers for entry. It allows new entrant ISPs to be able to use Title II right of way capabilities. These same capabilities that the various incumbentISPs have been using somewhat illegitimately the whole time (Basically all the major incumbent ISPs have previous operated under both Title I and Title II whenever it suited them). Verizon was infamous/famous for doing this: new to run a new line, put it in under Title II; start service with new line. that service is a Title I service!
By far the biggest barrier to entry for a new ISP is capital followed closely with right of way. Title II helps immensely with right of way, esp for new entrants which don't yet have the structure of the large ISPs and can't switch things back and forth between Title II/I.
In addition, the other major action that the FCC took today wrt Chattanooga's EPB Fiber and the City of Wilson(Greenlight) in NC are significant for increasing free market competition. In both cases, the state legislatures were bribed and bought to prevent EPB or Greenlight from expanding. In at least the case of EPB, the areas that EPB wanted to expand its fiber service to were already served by EPB for power and the fiber was already strung along the whole entire fiber grid (EPB uses the fiber both for their smart grid implementation and as a by product to provide fiber TV/Internet/Phone service). The various major incumbent ISPs (Comast/ATT/et al) bribed and pushed the Tennessee state legislature to prevent EPB to provide fiber service outside of a limited footprint. The FCC used its authority (already upheld by judicial opinion to exist via 706), to override the state laws and allow the EPB/Greenlight to expand fiber service, thereby increasing competition and availability of broadband internet.
So the same companies and entities that are against a free market and competition are exactly those that are against Net Neutrality. This shouldn't exactly be a surprise to anyone. These are the same companies and entities that have tried to prevent competition anywhere they can. Comcast et al have sued or threatened to sue any new ISP rollout including Google Fiber.
So the simple reality is that the actions taken by the FCC in these two cases are actual and factual steps towards a free market, not away from a free market. The FCC with the Net Neutrality related changes is encouraging a more free market in content and content delivery and the FCC in their rulings overriding scandalous state laws that restrict competition are promoting a competitive free market.
You have to really twist things or be ignorant of the actual realities to see anything that the FCC did as restricting or curbing free markets.
Also about the only way you'll ever get to 5 different companies competing in an area for TV or internet service is if the FCC forces local loop unbundling.