Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 233

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

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    You do understand that the government isn't really engaging in restrictive regulation, rather they are protecting consumers from companies that want to slow down your online services in order to get more money from you?
    You do understand that any regulation is by nature restrictive?

    This type of regulation is not restrictive?

    It doesn't place limits on how companies recoup costs and earn profits?

    How is the current system really any different from what cable/satellite companies do with the "packages" they offer?

    Does none of that money go towards building and up keep on the networks necessary to bring content to individual subscribers?

    Should the individual consumer have to pay for all of the infrastructure alone?

    Should low density population areas pay exorbitant cost compared to Urban areas or do without because providers cannot recoup the cost necessary to pay for the infrastructure?

    And no, it doesn't cost me anything more. Since I live in a very Rural area, it would actually costs me less than if the few available providers only had such limited means to pay for the very infrastructure necessary to bring any content at all. I say would, because my current provider (only broadband available without going to a satellite company) doesn't restrict or charge companies more so their content can be provided faster. (It wouldn't be effective for them as the market they serve is simply too small for Companies like Netflix, etc to be willing to pay.)
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  2. #52
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,685

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Greater Freedom through Greater restrictive regulation. Typical Leftist BS.
    You're against a regulation that bans regulation on the basis that it's too much regulation?

    Do you think that your ISP should be able to decide what you can and can't see on the internet? Do you think that they should be able to select what you see when you browse to Foxnews.com?

  3. #53
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,685

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    You do understand that any regulation is by nature restrictive?

    This type of regulation is not restrictive?

    It doesn't place limits on how companies recoup costs and earn profits?

    How is the current system really any different from what cable/satellite companies do with the "packages" they offer?

    Does none of that money go towards building and up keep on the networks necessary to bring content to individual subscribers?

    Should the individual consumer have to pay for all of the infrastructure alone?

    Should low density population areas pay exorbitant cost compared to Urban areas or do without because providers cannot recoup the cost necessary to pay for the infrastructure?

    And no, it doesn't cost me anything more. Since I live in a very Rural area, it would actually costs me less than if the few available providers only had such limited means to pay for the very infrastructure necessary to bring any content at all. I say would, because my current provider (only broadband available without going to a satellite company) doesn't restrict or charge companies more so their content can be provided faster. (It wouldn't be effective for them as the market they serve is simply too small for Companies like Netflix, etc to be willing to pay.)

    Cable and Satellite are completely antithetical to the way the internet works. A cable company has a network that provides content, and then connects you to that content via their network.

    The internet is a collection of interconnected networks that all agree to route each others traffic. ISPs are not the internet. They provide you a connection to the internet. If the internet was the interstate highway system, ISPs would be the on ramps. They're not the highway.

  4. #54
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    You do understand that the government isn't really engaging in restrictive regulation, rather they are protecting consumers from companies that want to slow down your online services in order to get more money from you?
    Exactly. I don't know what part of this some people don't get.

    Every consumer of internet services should be together in favor of net neutrality regardless of political perspective.

    The only ones who should be for it are the businesses that benefit and those that see no problem with a company deciding what they can see on the internet. Maybe Ayn Rand fans?

  5. #55
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:49 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,268

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    This type of regulation is not restrictive?
    It's not very restrictive. In fact, it's quite limited in scope. All it says is that ISPs should treat all packets equally.


    It doesn't place limits on how companies recoup costs and earn profits?
    Very few limits. What it really does is prevent companies from abusing a potential monopoly condition.


    How is the current system really any different from what cable/satellite companies do with the "packages" they offer?
    1) It's completely different. Bundling restricts consumer choice, and doesn't affect backend resources.

    2) The package model completely sucks ass. Cable providers really ought to do a la carte, and refuse to do so because it's not to their benefit. They don't seem to care much about consumers or even channel operators.


    Does none of that money go towards building and up keep on the networks necessary to bring content to individual subscribers?
    Which money? The money they would extort from a company like Netflix, or the profits they'd reap by pushing competitive services onto subscribers when they hobble the competition?


    Should low density population areas pay exorbitant cost compared to Urban areas or do without because providers cannot recoup the cost necessary to pay for the infrastructure?
    You do realize your argument here is actually in favor of regulation, right?

    ISP's lose money on providing broadband to rural areas. If it was an unregulated enterprise, they wouldn't do it. They offer it -- where they do offer it -- because of government intervention, FCC regulations and subsidies, or extracting promises from large ISPs during mergers. E.g. when AT&T and BellSouth merged, the FCC required that AT&T provide broadband to all the merged coverage areas, including rural regions. (A promise they apparently haven't kept, btw)

    I.e. if it wasn't for government intervention, you probably wouldn't have broadband at all.

    They won't use the excess revenues to invest in rural infrastructure. It will go where it's gone for several years -- to profit margins, and to build out infrastructure for medium- and high-density regions. Net neutrality has zero impact on the question of rural access.

  6. #56
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    25,885
    Blog Entries
    11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    LOL not afford to increase their network capacity? HAHAH. Listen we are talking about some of the biggest ISPs on the planet with some of the biggest pots of cash of all companies out there. You would be correct if it was a small ISP, but Verizone, Cox, Comcast, AT&T and so on.. hell no.
    Business hostile as always it seems. (*sigh*)

    How many large networks have you upgraded lately? Or is this assessment just because that's what you believe to be true? And not founded in any for experienced reality. I'm not claiming this for myself either, by the way, but I am pointing out that upgrading large networks have a lot more expense involved that what you might think.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    I have seen this crap so many times before in Europe and because we have real competition here in the telecommunications market, then those who used such tactics would loose customers faster than you can read this sentence. And those doing it were often the biggest former state monopoly companies... which is a double irony because they are usually the ones with the 100 year maintenance and expansion contracts of the networks.
    And here I was thinking that we were talking about US ISPs and US ISP regulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No it depends on how you define bandwidth abusers and ISPs can define that any way they wish. I read a story about a woman on Comcast that was kicked off Comcast for watching too much Youtube.. I mean come on, even if you were running Youtube 24/7 then that would hardly set a blip on the radar ... this was before Youtube had HD btw.
    It depends on if the network is over subscribed and by how much it is, as well as how well the network is functioning. On any one day there might be a bunch of issues that are being silently addressed and resolved, and never heard about.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Then why are they proposing it, in the material they have sent to congress to get approval.. they are after all writing the so called "net neutrality" proposals...
    Why are some writing the "net neutrality" proposals? I dunno. Because it's a media venue the that government can't control right now? This giving them the legal precedence for something more further down the line?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So you are saying that you can switch from Comcast to say Cox in the same area? (let me give you a hint.. no you cant).
    Well, that's flat out wrong. Yes there is choice in ISPs. Right now I can chose between Comcast, AT&T U-Verse and WideOpenWest, and if I wanted to
    do satellite, I believe there's someone who'll off that as a service as well. THe industry term is call chrun, and it's been part of the ISP industry for a long time now.

    Accenture Study Finds Wireless, Fixed Line, ISP Churn Growing

    ISPs face high churn rates - CNET News

    And it is showing no slow down.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Alternatives are DSL, who have to rely on outdated telephone systems, satellite which aint an alternative at all and not much else. There is no real competition in most US markets, especially when it comes to cable provided internet.

    Here in Spain, which is in the dark ages internet wise (relative speaking), I have the choice of at least 5 main ISPs, 3 cable operators, 4+ wireless (WiMax and 4G) providers, 3+ satellite providers and of course 3G mobile operators. Soon I will also have fiber optic connections (they digging up the road at the moment), which will add another 3+ providers easily.



    Yes it is.. and those "communities" are a huge majority of the US.



    Cant compete if there is only one option..



    There is no competition in most of the US.. the main cities might have it, but out side those places.. hell no.

    ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states | Ars Technica

    There are so many limits on competition in the various states and they are being pushed by the telecommunications cartel.



    Well considering the US has some of the highest prices in the industrialized world and no where near the fastest average speeds, then something is seriously wrong....and dont use the "we are a big country" bull**** excuse, because it is irrelevant.
    Umm. No. It's not. The physical infrastructure to span distances with telecommunications lines is not irrelevant. Someone has to pay for all that. Most often than not, the large TelCos are burying fiber bundles along side the road on the easement, and that's not cheap.

    I would suggest that you don't try to dictate what you believe is reality over here from over there to a native living it over here. It really doesn't work out so well for you.
    Friends of Billary Investigations [ the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigations (AKA the federal bureau of matters) ]
    “That’s why I told Washington Republicans to grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done,”, Martha McSally - Yeeesss!!

  7. #57
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    It's not very restrictive. In fact, it's quite limited in scope. All it says is that ISPs should treat all packets equally.



    Very few limits. What it really does is prevent companies from abusing a potential monopoly condition.



    1) It's completely different. Bundling restricts consumer choice, and doesn't affect backend resources.

    2) The package model completely sucks ass. Cable providers really ought to do a la carte, and refuse to do so because it's not to their benefit. They don't seem to care much about consumers or even channel operators.



    Which money? The money they would extort from a company like Netflix, or the profits they'd reap by pushing competitive services onto subscribers when they hobble the competition?



    You do realize your argument here is actually in favor of regulation, right?

    ISP's lose money on providing broadband to rural areas. If it was an unregulated enterprise, they wouldn't do it. They offer it -- where they do offer it -- because of government intervention, FCC regulations and subsidies, or extracting promises from large ISPs during mergers. E.g. when AT&T and BellSouth merged, the FCC required that AT&T provide broadband to all the merged coverage areas, including rural regions. (A promise they apparently haven't kept, btw)

    I.e. if it wasn't for government intervention, you probably wouldn't have broadband at all.

    They won't use the excess revenues to invest in rural infrastructure. It will go where it's gone for several years -- to profit margins, and to build out infrastructure for medium- and high-density regions. Net neutrality has zero impact on the question of rural access.
    So, you admit that Mithras post that it was non-restrictive was false. You might also keep in mind, than in the human body, a single platelet that is part of a clog is not, by itself very restrictive. But a lot of those "not very restrictive" platelets form into a clog and will cause a stroke or a heart attack. How many of these "not very restrictive" regulations will it take to clog the arteries of enterprise and kill the entire nation.

    In other words, you are back to same lame "profit is evil" BS of the left. Have you even looked at those profit margins?

    Yes, there are evils done by corporations, but far less than done by the "someone should pay my share" crowd.

    "Net neutrality" is all about welfare for masses. They should be allowed to use up massive bandwidth but it should be paid for by someone else. So, providers found that someone else in the form of those companies that offer services that chew up large amounts of bandwidth.

    Really, if people want "net neutrality", it would be best if companies charged by bandwidth use instead of flat fees.

    In the end, it comes down to a persons philosophy on business.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  8. #58
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,685

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Business hostile as always it seems. (*sigh*)

    How many large networks have you upgraded lately? Or is this assessment just because that's what you believe to be true? And not founded in any for experienced reality. I'm not claiming this for myself either, by the way, but I am pointing out that upgrading large networks have a lot more expense involved that what you might think.



    And here I was thinking that we were talking about US ISPs and US ISP regulations.



    It depends on if the network is over subscribed and by how much it is, as well as how well the network is functioning. On any one day there might be a bunch of issues that are being silently addressed and resolved, and never heard about.



    Why are some writing the "net neutrality" proposals? I dunno. Because it's a media venue the that government can't control right now? This giving them the legal precedence for something more further down the line?



    Well, that's flat out wrong. Yes there is choice in ISPs. Right now I can chose between Comcast, AT&T U-Verse and WideOpenWest, and if I wanted to
    do satellite, I believe there's someone who'll off that as a service as well. THe industry term is call chrun, and it's been part of the ISP industry for a long time now.

    Accenture Study Finds Wireless, Fixed Line, ISP Churn Growing

    ISPs face high churn rates - CNET News

    And it is showing no slow down.



    Umm. No. It's not. The physical infrastructure to span distances with telecommunications lines is not irrelevant. Someone has to pay for all that. Most often than not, the large TelCos are burying fiber bundles along side the road on the easement, and that's not cheap.

    I would suggest that you don't try to dictate what you believe is reality over here from over there to a native living it over here. It really doesn't work out so well for you.
    You're confusing quantity with content. No one is arguing that ISPs should have the ability to make you pay for bandwidth. Net Neutrality simply means that ISPs aren't allowed to tell you how to use that bandwidth. It's like a power company charging you more because you use a refrigerator they don't like.

  9. #59
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,685

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    So, you admit that Mithras post that it was non-restrictive was false. You might also keep in mind, than in the human body, a single platelet that is part of a clog is not, by itself very restrictive. But a lot of those "not very restrictive" platelets form into a clog and will cause a stroke or a heart attack. How many of these "not very restrictive" regulations will it take to clog the arteries of enterprise and kill the entire nation.

    In other words, you are back to same lame "profit is evil" BS of the left. Have you even looked at those profit margins?

    Yes, there are evils done by corporations, but far less than done by the "someone should pay my share" crowd.

    "Net neutrality" is all about welfare for masses. They should be allowed to use up massive bandwidth but it should be paid for by someone else. So, providers found that someone else in the form of those companies that offer services that chew up large amounts of bandwidth.

    Really, if people want "net neutrality", it would be best if companies charged by bandwidth use instead of flat fees.

    In the end, it comes down to a persons philosophy on business.
    No one is giving away bandwidth. Net Neutrality means that ISPs are not allowed to place additional regulations on the bandwidth you pay for. If they sell you 54Mbs, then you get 54Mbs. You don't only get 54Mbs if you use their search engine or their movie service. If you request a packet of information from the internet, should your ISP be able to treat it differently because of what's inside of it? Do you want your ISP to be able to block a website because it says something critical about the ISP.

    Net Neutrality is not partisan in any way shape or form.

  10. #60
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    4,816

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

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    How much innovation is going on in the public utilities? Doesn't seem like much.
    Lots of innovation continues on the Internet. Turning the Internet into a public utility is going to stifle the innovation?

    The Internet, and innovations built on the Internet, run at the speed of the Internet, quickly and fleet a foot. Public utilities can't, don't and will never. You want to turn the Internet into a public utility with feet of clay?
    Not sure where you got any of that from. I don't want regulation of the internet. I don't want ISPs controlling it either. I want it free.

    Was it a false statement when I said the country needs infrastructure upgrades in rural areas?
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •