Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 233

Thread: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

  1. #101
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,986

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    The government funded the development of the Internet technologies, and then kept it's hands off it.
    Except for legislating it, and basically having a solid grip on ICAAN, etc etc.

    By the way -- doesn't your description of this history pretty much refute your own claims that government can't be trusted? How does it make sense to describe governments as inexorably overreaching, when they literally leave it alone for a few decades? It just doesn't compute.


    All of the things that you mention are ancillary to the core issue here, which is the delivery, or lack there of, of content, which really is something that the government should keep out of, and let the private sector handle it. It's been doing pretty well so far.
    It looks to me like you are confusing "treating all traffic as equal" and "government censorship of content."

    Net neutrality, yet again, has NOTHING to do with censoring content. The only thing it does is prevent ISPs from abusing their monopoly position. And yeah... they pretty much are monopolies, as we can see with the mergers of the already-big companies (again, Comcast and Time-Warner).


    Well at least we can agree on that point, but between the two, let me choose between businesses I deal with. No such choice with government, so much more limited government's involvement the better, if you ask me.
    Nice theory, too bad it doesn't match reality. There isn't much choice in broadband ISPs these days, and we'll have one less choice if the Comcast-Time Warner merger goes through. Even customers in NYC, a big urban region, have few options for broadband. Most of the companies they can choose from (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc) have conflicts of interest with services like Netflix or Vonage.

    Oh, and we can choose our elected officials, who in turn determine what bureaucracies like the FCC can do.


    The fairness doctrine was pushing onto the market what the market didn't want, distorting the market. Something that the government shouldn't be doing, but yet does far, far, far too often on nearly every front and impacting every industry.
    Lol

    No, the Fairness Doctrine wasn't "distorting the market." Not even close.

    The spectrum is a public good. The government licenses it to specific entities, in exchange for certain requirements. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to actually treat it as a public good, and spend a small amount of time discussing topics of public interest in a balanced way. Stations didn't have to devote their networks 24/7 to the topic; they could have other programs that expressed any point of view they wanted. It's no different than the CTA.


    Until we know the details of the business deal that resolved the conflict we don't know anything...
    By now, we have a pretty good idea.

    Slow Comcast speeds were costing Netflix customers - Aug. 29, 2014
    The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic Quartz

    There is no question that Comcast strangled them, and redirected their own customers to complain to Netflix, who caved.


    The end result was posted in the graph earlier, the content was delivered to the end users. Problem solved, and it didn't take government involvement. Must eat you up alive that it didn't.
    What "eats me alive" is that it was an egregious example of a monopolist with a conflict of interest, that abused its position, a ****ty solution that favored a corporate behemoth at the expense of a nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor.

    I don't mind at all when companies are able to sort things out on their own, without screwing the customers in the process. That isn't what happened here. Hence the problem, and the need for regulation, especially since next time the company who gets the shaft might not be able to afford the ransom.

  2. #102
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,849
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Except for legislating it, and basically having a solid grip on ICAAN, etc etc.

    By the way -- doesn't your description of this history pretty much refute your own claims that government can't be trusted? How does it make sense to describe governments as inexorably overreaching, when they literally leave it alone for a few decades? It just doesn't compute.
    That which has been left alone, will now be subjected to government oversight. That's a step backwards to me. Seems the government should continue to take a hands off. Besides, since you've admitted that it's the ISPs network, a private network, by which Internet based justification doe sthe government have the right to go and meddle inside of someone's private network?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    It looks to me like you are confusing "treating all traffic as equal" and "government censorship of content."
    Since traffic and content are the same thing on a digital network, how can you keep them apart?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Net neutrality, yet again, has NOTHING to do with censoring content. The only thing it does is prevent ISPs from abusing their monopoly position. And yeah... they pretty much are monopolies, as we can see with the mergers of the already-big companies (again, Comcast and Time-Warner).

    Nice theory, too bad it doesn't match reality. There isn't much choice in broadband ISPs these days, and we'll have one less choice if the Comcast-Time Warner merger goes through. Even customers in NYC, a big urban region, have few options for broadband. Most of the companies they can choose from (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc) have conflicts of interest with services like Netflix or Vonage.
    Monopolies? In the vast majority of the broadband connected areas there are at least 2, if not more, choices of both solutions and companies that provide the connectivity. Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Oh, and we can choose our elected officials, who in turn determine what bureaucracies like the FCC can do.
    When's the last time you chose an FCC bureaucrat? I don't think they come up for elections very often.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    No, the Fairness Doctrine wasn't "distorting the market." Not even close.

    The spectrum is a public good. The government licenses it to specific entities, in exchange for certain requirements. The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to actually treat it as a public good, and spend a small amount of time discussing topics of public interest in a balanced way. Stations didn't have to devote their networks 24/7 to the topic; they could have other programs that expressed any point of view they wanted. It's no different than the CTA.
    CTA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    By now, we have a pretty good idea.

    Slow Comcast speeds were costing Netflix customers - Aug. 29, 2014
    The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic Quartz

    There is no question that Comcast strangled them, and redirected their own customers to complain to Netflix, who caved.

    What "eats me alive" is that it was an egregious example of a monopolist with a conflict of interest, that abused its position, a ****ty solution that favored a corporate behemoth at the expense of a nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor.
    And this has occurred on the Internet when, exactly? Most nimble, newer, non-monopolistic tech companies sell out to corporate behemoth's at the market rate or above. If there's anything to like about the tech industry is that nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor nearly always out compete the corporate behemoth's.

    And speaking of behemoth's, when the federal government gets involved, it's the gorilla in the room, and you expect the nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor to be able to take THAT behemoth on? What sized companies have the resources to lobby and get what they want from the federal government? The nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitors? Or the corporate behemoth's? You sure you want the federal government inviolved in this? Seems that it'd go far worse for the nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitors if they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    I don't mind at all when companies are able to sort things out on their own, without screwing the customers in the process. That isn't what happened here. Hence the problem, and the need for regulation, especially since next time the company who gets the shaft might not be able to afford the ransom.

    For all of how long? 3 Months or less that traffic was impacted?

    I think you are suffering from an idealized concept of what the federal government does, and how it does it. Better get over that, as it could be fatal.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  3. #103
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,986

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    That which has been left alone, will now be subjected to government oversight. That's a step backwards to me.
    Yes, we get that.

    The thing is, the Internet is very different than it was in the past. In particular, ISPs are consolidating, and are involved in businesses that create conflicts of interest with new services like VOIP and VOD. Hence the need for regulation.


    since you've admitted that it's the ISPs network, a private network, by which Internet based justification doe sthe government have the right to go and meddle inside of someone's private network?
    Uh... yes, obviously I believe that governments are empowered to regulate ISPs and telcos, even if the telcos own the wiring and set up private contracts.


    Since traffic and content are the same thing on a digital network, how can you keep them apart?
    Net neutrality isn't about censoring content, or blocking the website for Fox News. It's about ensuring that ISPs treat all the data that customers request equally. They should not be allowed to intentionally slow down or impede the latency of a service that competes with something the ISP happens to offer. It's a narrow role. Is it really that hard to understand that this is a narrow regulation, that is not particularly egregious, is not going to result in massive overreach or insanely difficult regulations?


    Monopolies? In the vast majority of the broadband connected areas there are at least 2, if not more, choices of both solutions and companies that provide the connectivity. Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.
    Considering that pretty much all of those companies now have the same conflicts of interest, and are consolidating, it really is not much of a choice.


    CTA?
    Children's Television Act. Regulation so horrific and burdensome that you've never heard of it.


    And this has occurred on the Internet when, exactly?
    Hello? Last year? Netflix v Comcast?


    And speaking of behemoth's, when the federal government gets involved, it's the gorilla in the room, and you expect the nimble, newer, non-monopolistic competitor to be able to take THAT behemoth on?
    That's what they've been doing for years. And with net neutrality, they don't have to "take on" the FCC, because the regulation will ensure that they will not be blocked off by an ISP with a potential conflict of interest, or profit motive to extort them in exchange for some sort of "priority" service, or compete against big competitors with the big bucks to get "priority" service.

    E.g. imagine that a company develops a better search than Google, and doesn't want to sell out. Google pays Comcast for priority traffic, so even though the small company delivers better results, their website is slower than Google -- due to nothing they are doing wrong. How does this help the innovators?


    I think you are suffering from an idealized concept of what the federal government does, and how it does it. Better get over that, as it could be fatal.
    lol

    Did I mention the whole "hysterical slippery slope" thing?

  4. #104
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,849
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yes, we get that.

    The thing is, the Internet is very different than it was in the past. In particular, ISPs are consolidating, and are involved in businesses that create conflicts of interest with new services like VOIP and VOD. Hence the need for regulation.



    Uh... yes, obviously I believe that governments are empowered to regulate ISPs and telcos, even if the telcos own the wiring and set up private contracts.



    Net neutrality isn't about censoring content, or blocking the website for Fox News. It's about ensuring that ISPs treat all the data that customers request equally. They should not be allowed to intentionally slow down or impede the latency of a service that competes with something the ISP happens to offer. It's a narrow role. Is it really that hard to understand that this is a narrow regulation, that is not particularly egregious, is not going to result in massive overreach or insanely difficult regulations?



    Considering that pretty much all of those companies now have the same conflicts of interest, and are consolidating, it really is not much of a choice.



    Children's Television Act. Regulation so horrific and burdensome that you've never heard of it.



    Hello? Last year? Netflix v Comcast?



    That's what they've been doing for years. And with net neutrality, they don't have to "take on" the FCC, because the regulation will ensure that they will not be blocked off by an ISP with a potential conflict of interest, or profit motive to extort them in exchange for some sort of "priority" service, or compete against big competitors with the big bucks to get "priority" service.

    E.g. imagine that a company develops a better search than Google, and doesn't want to sell out. Google pays Comcast for priority traffic, so even though the small company delivers better results, their website is slower than Google -- due to nothing they are doing wrong. How does this help the innovators?



    lol

    Did I mention the whole "hysterical slippery slope" thing?
    Seems like we are looking this from 2 very different points of view. Each of us don't seem to be willing to give in much.

    We may have to agree to disagree on this particular topic.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  5. #105
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,849
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  6. #106
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,016

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/te...ality-fcc.html

    I am absolutely for this. This will allow the little guy the same access as the big guy. Great stuff.
    I am absolutely against it. Govt has no right to interfere in the workings of private companies, and when they do they make it worse, not better. This will result in the 'big guys' using govt regulation to push little guys out of the market.

    Govts job is to protect our lives and ensure our unalienable rights. Access to the internet is not one of those.

  7. #107
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    The government might over reach beyond requiring that telecoms treat all data neutrally, and begin to interfere with the free exchange of the internet.

    HOWEVER...

    The telecoms WILL over reach, as they've done so in the past and taken stances in the present to suggest they have continue to have a desire to do such.

    I'll take the chance with the government over the near certainty with the telecom psuedo-monopolies.

  8. #108
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,681

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Yeah, the problem with Net Neutrality as sold is that it puts the government in charge of denying revenue streams to the ISPs in favor of saving the content providers money. It's picking winners.

    The problem is that in the end the ISPs will maintain net neutrality by simply charging the end user more for internet access. This is a common way our government tries to fool the American people into granting Government control. Net Neutrality is sold as a way of sticking it to the big corporations in favor of the little guy when, in the end, the end consumer is paying for it either way and now, with the Government now going to the highest bidder, the little guy is even more screwed.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  9. #109
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,849
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Yeah, the problem with Net Neutrality as sold is that it puts the government in charge of denying revenue streams to the ISPs in favor of saving the content providers money. It's picking winners.

    The problem is that in the end the ISPs will maintain net neutrality by simply charging the end user more for internet access. This is a common way our government tries to fool the American people into granting Government control. Net Neutrality is sold as a way of sticking it to the big corporations in favor of the little guy when, in the end, the end consumer is paying for it either way and now, with the Government now going to the highest bidder, the little guy is even more screwed.
    Some are claiming that to be against the Net Neutrality FCC regulations is to be of the opinion that all government is evil.

    Well, not so, as you clearly outline above. But the reality is that if the government's got it's finger is it, it's time to keep your hands on your wallet, as it seems they no longer have your best interests at heart (if they ever did is a good question).
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  10. #110
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,681

    Re: Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Some are claiming that to be against the Net Neutrality FCC regulations is to be of the opinion that all government is evil.

    Well, not so, as you clearly outline above. But the reality is that if the government's got it's finger is it, it's time to keep your hands on your wallet, as it seems they no longer have your best interests at heart (if they ever did is a good question).
    Yeah, in the end the Government doesn't save you from Corporate America as much as it gets in bed with Corporate America. With Government regulation now you have a pathway for Corporations to influence regulations on the Internet through influential politicians.

    I would MUCH rather the Government maintain a semblance of Net Neutrality by being more anti-monopoly and keeping a single provider from taking over huge regions of the country and denying the consumer choices.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •