McCain introduces bill to block Net neutrality

ScottD said:

The internet was created on a level playing field. That is the point of the internet, you have the same bandwidth and tools as the big guys to say what you want, when you want it. Net Neutrality is just protecting that freedom, it's protecting the ideals of the internet.

This is the good kind of regulation. The regulation to ensure our freedoms, and the ideals that the internet stands for.

Click to expand...

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 1. [47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges,....................

Click to expand...

This is an except from the act that created the F.C.C.
So very similar to the type of thing they are pushing for the Internet.
Who wants the net to become regulated in the manner of T.V. and Radio?

Kinda ironic that a man with next to non computer skills introduces a bill on it.. not to mention one that has received tons of money from the telecommunications industry who are against any melding in their monopolistic market. Yet again we have a Republican putting forward legislation to defend bad practices in an industry that are hurting the consumer.... ahh the irony.

PeteEU said:

Kinda ironic that a man with next to non computer skills introduces a bill on it.. not to mention one that has received tons of money from the telecommunications industry who are against any melding in their monopolistic market. Yet again we have a Republican putting forward legislation to defend bad practices in an industry that are hurting the consumer.... ahh the irony.

Click to expand...

Well - instead of them passing Net Neutrality which isn't *just* to *help the people out* perhaps they should consider regulating what the industry can and cannot do - on our behalf.
They should do this more often then they seem to favor passing bills and amendments.

This is the thing about legislation:

If it can be passed then anything can be added to it.
If an added on *thing* is not germane (realted to the purpose of the bill) then it is called a rider.
If a bill has a lot of riders then it is often called a "Christmass Tree."
If a bill has a lot of constituent-pleasers then those things are called "pork" and the bill is considered "pork barreling"

In the case of net neutrality the true "issue" at the center is no big deal: companies are affecting our use of their service because of their solicited bias from others.

This in itself is not what most people have issues with - it's the other junk that is already in the bill or might get put into the bill.

rivrrat said:

I'd prefer, however, that they just allow companies to compete with one another on an even playing field. Dunno why they don't do that.

Click to expand...

Because companies don't compete fair when they don't have to. There are tops 6 real internet providers in all of the continental U.S. - and when I say 'real' I mean with any significant market share. We do not have a market when it comes to the internet in the U.S. - we have a cartel of internet providers. Just like there is no oil market. There is a cartel of oil producing countries(OPEC).

Hatuey said:

Because companies don't compete fair when they don't have to. There are tops 6 real internet providers in all of the continental U.S. - and when I say 'real' I mean with any significant market share. We do not have a market when it comes to the internet in the U.S. - we have a cartel of internet providers. Just like there is no oil market. There is a cartel of oil producing countries(OPEC).

Click to expand...

They don't compete at all. You're trying to tell me that they don't WANT to? That they actually want to allow other companies to have monopolies and force them out of servicing certain areas? That makes no sense.

rivrrat said:

Exactly. As long as companies have monopolies in certain areas and are not allowed to compete with one another, then unfortunately some kind of net neutrality regulation is needed.

I'd prefer, however, that they just allow companies to compete with one another on an even playing field. Dunno why they don't do that.

Click to expand...

There are already laws against monopolies. Why make a new law?

Don't make the mistake of relying only on McCain and the rest of those in Congress who will back this from the start to do the right thing without much more support from others who must be forced by public pressure to do the right thing and what we want and demand.
Get involved and contact every legislator and let then know we want this next step in Obama's total control of everything stopped by passage of this Bill, This is part of the Communist take over I have warned about for a long time and it will not stop here unless we stop it. Don't for one minute listen to the dumb ass Liberals because all they care about is winning for the party and don't give a damn about the future of our Republic. In fact most don't even know what a Democratic Republic is. Hell the they call themselves the Democratic party when in fact they are the Democrat party and the appose such basics as free speech or they wouldn't back Obama's continued personal attacks on it, or him sending his minions out to do his bidding to shut up all opposition.

apdst said:

There are already laws against monopolies. Why make a new law?

Click to expand...

Then why are there monopolies?

rivrrat said:

Then why are there monopolies?

Click to expand...

I don't have an answer for that one. But, I say let's just enforce the existing law, rather than making a new one.

apdst said:

I don't have an answer for that one. But, I say let's just enforce the existing law, rather than making a new one.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you.

They just love making new ones, though, because they're opportunities to shove through something else.

apdst said:

I don't have an answer for that one. But, I say let's just enforce the existing law, rather than making a new one.

Click to expand...

So, what you're suggesting is that the monopolies that are present in every single community all over the country are actually illegal?

rivrrat said:

So, what you're suggesting is that the monopolies that are present in every single community all over the country are actually illegal?

Click to expand...

Monopolies aren't all bad - and aren't all illegal.
Often, when a business has a monopoly in the market action is only taken when they've violated laws and have become reckless, etc. ( in the case of Net Neutrality it's suggested that the companies that alter or charge extra for access to certain websites are monopolizing the market becaues they're forcing the already paying customer to adhere, further, to their biased decisions.)

Walmart is a good example of a monopolized business - they often root out the competititon so throughly that they fall into this category of a bad-monopoly and, therefor, they're subject to certain restrictions and other regulations (it differs state to state).

rivrrat said:

So, what you're suggesting is that the monopolies that are present in every single community all over the country are actually illegal?

Click to expand...

How is it a monopoly if, as in most places, you can use cable, DSL, Sat, or Air Card through several different cell companies?

.

TOJ said:

How is it a monopoly if, as in most places, you can use cable, DSL, Sat, or Air Card through several different cell companies?

.

Click to expand...

I cannot choose what cable company I want to use. I have no choice. There is only one available. They have a monopoly.

rivrrat said:

I cannot choose what cable company I want to use. I have no choice. There is only one available. They have a monopoly.

Click to expand...

It think his point is; Is that your only internet access choice?
Most people have a choice, DSL, Cable, Satellite, or service via cell.

Phoenix said:

It think his point is; Is that your only internet access choice?
Most people have a choice, DSL, Cable, Satellite, or service via cell.

Click to expand...

No, "most" people don't. Its a very city, coastal view point honestly.

Yes, generally if you live in a high population area in the coasts of the country there's a chance you could have DSL, Cable, Satelilite, and possibly cell.

In many places of the company however, there's only really one choice, maybe two if you're lucky.

Not to mention Cell service as your internet is already experiencing some of the issues, with the "unlimited internet" offered by them being hardly "unlimited" but actually generally capped at about 5gig by their TOS.

Hell, I'm in Northern Virginia...hardly a middle of the country BFE type place...and my only options are Cable or possibly cell right now. Verizon won't run its FIOS connection to my apartment complex, and we're not in a position that will get good Sat coverage. I could do Sprint or AT&T, but see previous issue.

No, its frankly not an open market. Just because a few places give you a few choices of "internet", though hardly a few choices of TYPE of internet, doesn't mean that's the norm.

Zyphlin said:

No, "most" people don't. Its a very city, coastal view point honestly.

Yes, generally if you live in a high population area in the coasts of the country there's a chance you could have DSL, Cable, Satelilite, and possibly cell.

In many places of the company however, there's only really one choice, maybe two if you're lucky.

Not to mention Cell service as your internet is already experiencing some of the issues, with the "unlimited internet" offered by them being hardly "unlimited" but actually generally capped at about 5gig by their TOS.

Hell, I'm in Northern Virginia...hardly a middle of the country BFE type place...and my only options are Cable or possibly cell right now. Verizon won't run its FIOS connection to my apartment complex, and we're not in a position that will get good Sat coverage. I could do Sprint or AT&T, but see previous issue.

No, its frankly not an open market. Just because a few places give you a few choices of "internet", though hardly a few choices of TYPE of internet, doesn't mean that's the norm.

Click to expand...

You stated that most people don't have any choice and then proceeded to point out that, yes, you do. You just don't like those choices.

As far as choice only being available in high population areas, I have a place in a remote area of the central USA where I spend as much of time as possible while in the USA. The closest major city is over 200 miles away. I have the choice of cable, DSL, Sat from two providers, or cell based from ATT, Verizon, or T-Mobile.

.

Phoenix said:

It think his point is; Is that your only internet access choice?
Most people have a choice, DSL, Cable, Satellite, or service via cell.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, there is only one cable provider. So, they have a monopoly.

But, at my parents home, for instance, they have only the choice for cable. No DSL. They could possibly get satellite, but who the **** would be stupid enough to choose sat when they have cable available?

Only one provider for cable. Only one provider for DSL. In other words, they have a monopoly.

Satellite internet is not good. As the technology stands now it is highly unstable and highly expensive. It has high latency issues which is a killer for many things you do on the internet.

Cell phone internet is still in its baby steps. Most providers still do not provide the same service as cable/DSL in speeds or usage. Usually there is a max download limit of 1 to 5 GB a month at full speed and anything after that is either paid per mb or the speed is cut to under 256kbs. So this is hardly a viable option for any heavy user of the net. Not to mention the quality of the signal depends often on location and there are high latency issues.

So both above are not real viable alternatives to cable/DSL solutions, in both cost and quality. Might as well have dial up via modem since they are really only good for mails and basic internet surfing.

And yes the US has a serious problem with its Internet providers. I have seen it before, we had it in Europe before liberalization of the telecommunications market was pushed through against the wishes of the telecommunications industry. This has meant that even in Spain, a country that by European standards is still in the Internet dark ages, we have 5 plus nationally available and half a dozen local providers. On top of that there are many wireless solutions, plus of course cell phone and satellite solutions. Competition is good regardless of where you are.

rivrrat said:

Doesn't matter, there is only one cable provider. So, they have a monopoly.

But, at my parents home, for instance, they have only the choice for cable. No DSL. They could possibly get satellite, but who the **** would be stupid enough to choose sat when they have cable available?

Only one provider for cable. Only one provider for DSL. In other words, they have a monopoly.

Click to expand...

One cable provider? How about DirecTV, Dish Network?
If the satellite provider offered some internet service or site access they couldn't get otherwise, it would be a consideration.

Phoenix said:

One cable provider? How about DirecTV, Dish Network?
If the satellite provider offered some internet service or site access they couldn't get otherwise, it would be a consideration.

Click to expand...

Satellite is not an option for an online gamer or anyone who transfers a lot of data per month and/or cannot afford high latency. Or someone who actually wants consistent, uninterrupted service. Or anyone who wants local news channels on TV.

Phoenix said:

One cable provider? How about DirecTV, Dish Network?
If the satellite provider offered some internet service or site access they couldn't get otherwise, it would be a consideration.

Click to expand...

Satellite internet is not worth the money. Huge costs, low quality and limited speeds.

rivrrat said:

Satellite is not an option for an online gamer or anyone who transfers a lot of data per month and/or cannot afford high latency. Or someone who actually wants consistent, uninterrupted service. Or anyone who wants local news channels on TV.

Click to expand...

PeteEU said:

Satellite internet is not worth the money. Huge costs, low quality and limited speeds.

Click to expand...

Local channels are available on Satellite Television and have been for years.

I have had to use satellite internet before. While you both are correct about the gaming aspects of it, I had no problems other than that.
I have to point out here though, that you both are claiming that the satellite option is available, but because it doesn't provide the standard of service you want you chose something else. When I had satellite the alternative was dial up. It was much better than dial up.
Even if we discount the options available and say that monopolies exist in the areas of cable and internet, Who created these monopolies? Government. So asking them to police the situation seems counter productive.

Phoenix said:

Local channels are available on Satellite Television and have been for years.

I have had to use satellite internet before. While you both are correct about the gaming aspects of it, I had no problems other than that.
I have to point out here though, that you both are claiming that the satellite option is available, but because it doesn't provide the standard of service you want you chose something else. When I had satellite the alternative was dial up. It was much better than dial up.

Click to expand...

Yes it is much better than dial up, however the cost is also huge in comparison. Dial up is often free.. satellite aint. And yes games and similar things that require a steady stable low latency are useless on satellite.

Even if we discount the options available and say that monopolies exist in the areas of cable and internet, Who created these monopolies? Government. So asking them to police the situation seems counter productive.

Click to expand...

Hardly. While it might be right that government rules and regulations created these monopolies, these monopolies or near monopolies will stay so unless those rules and regulations are either removed or new ones put in place to secure competition on the market. And that is the whole point. If a company has a monopoly in an area on say DSL or Cable.. why? Can competitors not pay for access to the "copper/wires in the ground" and hence create competition? If not, then there you have your problem.. the buy in cost for new competition is far far too steep to make it viable. If everyone had to lay down their own cable in a city or area, then there would be no competition as it is insanely expensive to do so, plus often highly unnecessary. Its like electricity. Just because there are several electricity companies in the area, does not mean that you have to put up new lines if you change company.. unless that does not exist in the US either?

In Europe, Government did create monopolies in the telecommunications market. But it was also government that pulled the sector out of monopoly by creating liberalisation that insured that anyone with the capital and will could start up a telecommunications company and provide a service. And believe me the big telecommunications companies were not happy about the legislation.. especially the old monopoly companies who owned and still do own most of the copper in the ground so to say. They are required by law to give access to competitors at a reasonable price.

Phoenix said:

Even if we discount the options available and say that monopolies exist in the areas of cable and internet, Who created these monopolies? Government. So asking them to police the situation seems counter productive.

Click to expand...

I've already stated that the preferred alternative would be to allow cable companies to compete with one another directly. If they are not able to do that, then something else must be done to prevent a company from monopolizing an area and raping its customers.