Net Nuetrality

[uscbucsfan]

And what might Elon Musk's vision of launching hundreds of Internet satellites mean to this whole discussion?

That's what I'm saying with the wireless thing. But I still think a compelling argument could be made that allowing a company to place infrastructure that operates in your country, whether it be a physical wire or a radio wave or anything else that just happens to not be seen by the human eye, should not exempt you from regulation.

And of course it already doesn't, with stuff like the FCC and the CRTC in Canada.

As I say, it sounds compelling to say that simply because you establish infrastructure, you should have complete control over what you do with it, but it has never been the case and probably won't ever be the case. That argument is a red herring. But it does seem more compelling when the government doesn't really have to do anything in terms of establishing the infrastructure, like with satellites.

There are many who believe that instead of a red herring it should be the norm, hence the legislation that is being debated. There is a large group of individuals who want less government intervention into the markets. This is a great example of that. The opposition is highlighted by MB's post where people feel extorted by large corporations because they lose entitlements. It's the basis of much of our debate on these forums. What should the government provide? How much should the government be in our lives?

In the case with net neutrality many of the cable companies have established natural monopolies in some areas with their infrastructure, they should be able to charge Netflix, sling tv, etc. to use their resources much like power Co-ops pay to use larger electric companies to use their lines. While the government allowed the large power companies access to easements, provided tax breaks for infrastructure, etc. it's still their equipment and have control over it. This is obviously not an apples to apples comparison as NYBF already pointed out with coffee shop. The cookie had to be introduced to make it similar, but the cable companies originally established their infrastructure to supply video entertainment over cable lines, long before internet. It's their original base of revenue and they have advanced to supply internet on the same infrastructure.

Overall I would be happier if I could continue to stream Netflix, Sling TV, etc., but I don't think it's the governments place to step in and prevent the cable companies from regulating how their product works. I also don't think that the government should be able to tell LLCs or other "government helped" companies how they can run their business, which is something else we will see regulation change in the near future and I'm sure will create new debates.

I do respect the opinion of those who don't like net neutrality, because on a selfish personal level...I get it...**** the big companies, right? I just have a differing opinion on government intervention. I'm willing to pay more to get what I want from internet and TV if I deem it necessary. I'm not really concerned if the cable companies are making too much money. If I am priced out of television, then they will lose me as a customer and will suffer because of it.

Also, I'm sure many more places will be installing fiber on a state, city/county level. I believe if a small town in SC is doing it, we will see it elsewhere.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Government intervention prevents monopolies and protects consumers. Both are critical to a good market.

The internet is a utility. Pure and simple. Sure, it lets us **** around in here and watch tranny midget orgy porn, but it's also a critical part of banking, education, job hunting, tax filing, and interaction with government like the DMV and paying parking tickets.

It is increasingly necessary to have internet access to function here, and allowing the ISPs to dictate what you see and do on the internet is counterintuitive to the concept of good economic policy and corporate governance. If you pay for the internet access, you should get access to the entire internet. End of story.

Package it any way you like, this is nothing but a money grab and no amount of bitching about Netflix will change that.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, USC. We are way too far apart on this.

[Nano]

[uscbucsfan]

Government intervention prevents monopolies and protects consumers. Both are critical to a good market.

The internet is a utility. Pure and simple. Sure, it lets us **** around in here and watch tranny midget orgy porn, but it's also a critical part of banking, education, job hunting, tax filing, and interaction with government like the DMV and paying parking tickets.

It is increasingly necessary to have internet access to function here, and allowing the ISPs to dictate what you see and do on the internet is counterintuitive to the concept of good economic policy and corporate governance. If you pay for the internet access, you should get access to the entire internet. End of story.

Package it any way you like, this is nothing but a money grab and no amount of bitching about Netflix will change that.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, USC. We are way too far apart on this.

It is a money grab. I just argue that they should be able to grab said money.

I slipped the natural monopoly in there because ISPs that have run hard cable or wires such as TWC/Spectrum, Comcast, AT&T have established themselves as those in a facet. The barrier to entry is too great for Netflix to run hard lines. The cable/infrastructure companies originally requested Netflix/sling 15 cents per subscriber a month to use their lines. We see all over the world with these "natural monopolies". I understand why this is different because so much of our world is based on what is running on their infrastructure, but you are right, we aren't going to agree on the end game.

There will be similar cases like this to debate in the near future.

edit: Power and to an extent even cellular phone providers are utilities as well. They can charge competitors to run on their infrastructure. Why not ISPs?

[lachisbackisback]

USC, I think it all boils down to the fact that the main crux of my argument is how important and significant easements and government concessions are, whereas you simply dismiss it by saying the equipment is still owned by the company.

I look at it as though a country's natural resources and public spaces are extremely valuable assets, and they are owned collectively by the general population of said country. When we appoint a democratic government, we are expecting them to strike a balance between relinquishing those resources so that industry flourishes, like in the case of fishing and mining and logging etc., but also ensuring that the resources aren't disproportionately diminished or abused. At least I am, even though it's a vain hope in many cases.

So when I look at the countless easements and concessions these companies were not only given when they established their infrastructure, but that they continue to enjoy on a constant basis in order to enjoy their success, I don't think it is something you should wave away. People rarely think about how valuable the collective resources of their country are, and doing so is almost always to their detriment. Government and industry already operate in lockstep, without any thought for the long-term health of the country, and unfortunately your mindset enables them to do so with little to no repercussions.

And you're talking about going down a dark path if you extend your thinking to other industries. A company that bottles water can just completely empty out the water table once they have the infrastructure to do so, leaving surrounding communities dry, and then move on to the next spot? A fishing conglomerate can just eliminate entire species of fish in an area simply because they have the infrastructure to do so? No, those are OUR resources, and there have to be regulations in place so that choices that impact us aren't completely at the whim of big business. I actually think it's sad that most people don't view their country and what it has to offer as theirs and feel a sense of ownership, but instead simply view it as a series of things waiting to be exploited by industry.

[uscbucsfan]

USC, I think it all boils down to the fact that the main crux of my argument is how important and significant easements and government concessions are, whereas you simply dismiss it by saying the equipment is still owned by the company.

I look at it as though a country's natural resources and public spaces are extremely valuable assets, and they are owned collectively by the general population of said country. When we appoint a democratic government, we are expecting them to strike a balance between relinquishing those resources so that industry flourishes, like in the case of fishing and mining and logging etc., but also ensuring that the resources aren't disproportionately diminished or abused. At least I am, even though it's a vain hope in many cases.

So when I look at the countless easements and concessions these companies were not only given when they established their infrastructure, but that they continue to enjoy on a constant basis in order to enjoy their success, I don't think it is something you should wave away. People rarely think about how valuable the collective resources of their country are, and doing so is almost always to their detriment. Government and industry already operate in lockstep, without any thought for the long-term health of the country, and unfortunately your mindset enables them to do so with little to no repercussions.

And you're talking about going down a dark path if you extend your thinking to other industries. A company that bottles water can just completely empty out the water table once they have the infrastructure to do so, leaving surrounding communities dry, and then move on to the next spot? A fishing conglomerate can just eliminate entire species of fish in an area simply because they have the infrastructure to do so? No, those are OUR resources, and there have to be regulations in place so that choices that impact us aren't completely at the whim of big business. I actually think it's sad that most people don't view their country and what it has to offer as theirs and feel a sense of ownership, but instead simply view it as a series of things waiting to be exploited by industry.

Great post. I have a response, but I'm working on presentation for work and this is stealing all of my concentration. I will get back to you.

edit:

The government, mostly state and county, have provided these easements/resources in trade of individuals getting cable, internet, and phone. This is the same with power, phone, or anything that the government isn't providing themselves. It's a way for them to ensure people can still utilize these resources and not have to provide it themselves.

These aren't or, as the people for repealing net neutrality, shouldn't be able to be leveraged later to hinder or control the business of the companies who actually laid the infrastructure.

As I pointed out previously with electric companies, BT in the UK, and Cell phone companies, they are able to charge competitors to use their infrastructure. They took advantage of government easements and rebates/tax credits as well.

We see this trade all over the world. Company "x" provides infrastructure and government provides land, allows company to operate, etc. Unless the government were to buy out the companies infrastructure or run their own, I don't believe they have a right to retroactively say, "We originally provided easement and gave you tax credits to set up your infrastructure. Now we are going to step in and regulate your company".

That's the disagreement that we are having. I do not believe the government should step in to regulate industries and markets in this facet.

Speaking to your examples, over fishing occurs all over the place, people do drain natural resources. I'm not sure what you mean by going down a dark path, these are regular instances occurring around the world for the last 20+ years.

I think most are ok with giving up easements or government property to power companies, internet providers, cable companies, phone companies because it provides them a resource. A resource that isn't costing the tax payer a fortune. After this transaction is made, we have the ability to choose what services we want (not with power). If a cable company/ISP gets too expensive, we have the ability to choose a competitor.

[mightyleemoon]

I know most are ignoring this thread, but I'll provide my opinion.

I have no problem with internet companies being able to restrict bandwidth to competitors product if it is on their infrastructure. Companies like sling TV and Netflix get all the perks of offering content to customers without having to provide the infrastructure. The TWC, Comcast, AT&T, and the dozens of local suppliers should have the ability to throttle their speeds or even block them if they wish. This fight all started when the internet providers tried to charge Netflix and Sling, but were unsuccessful. This is like if you saved your money and opened up your own coffee shop, then some guy sat at a table selling his own coffee for less money in your store. You don't think you have the right to prevent him from doing so?

That's a pretty horrible analogy. But, it's horribleness is at least a pretty great argument for Title 2. Try: There is only one building in town that is allowed to sell coffee. In your scenario, only the first guy who shows up to buy the building should be allowed to sell coffee in that town. Then, later, he decides to rent a few tables to other coffee providers, but he waters down all of their coffee since they are in his building.

As is: The industry is probably the most anti-competition industry in existence. And, consumers are getting fucked.

In some areas (like where I live) the county, city, or state is running fiber optic cable. They are going to rent it out to Verizon, TWC, Google...whoever wants to use it to provide a service to customers. From what the city announced they are doing this to increase competition, lower prices, and prevent companies from preferential bandwidth. I think this is an awesome use of local resources.

I like this and hate this all at once. Good for competition, but bad for innovation. There really is no "One size fits all" answer to this problem. Title 2 seems to be the best answer for the moment, though.

Edit: Looks like this has been covered. But cookies were introduced. But, cookies don't actually change the problem. There is still only one building in town. And, if the Comcasts get their way, then the first person to own that building gets to thwart all efforts at competition because "It's not fair! They get to use our stuff!" Also, since there is only one building...this coffees shop can even start to sell car parts and clothes and nobody will be allowed to sell these things anywhere else in town...unless they get to sit at one of his tables. Okay, yea, he was there first and from his perspective it's only fair that he gets to do what he wants. But, everyone else gets fucked in the process. I'm not a fan of big business getting to **** over everyone simply because "Hey, I was here first. Nobody gets to challenge me."

I guess this comes down to being either Pro Big Business via monopoly or Pro Consumer via competition. And, the side effect here is one drives innovation while the other drives stagnant tech.

[PanteraCanes]

It seems more like the coffee shop is the only one in town allowed to have tables, not just coffee. At first their business was about the coffee but then people wanted to use tables for other things and they decided to charge people a monthly table fee to use the tables however they wanted. Figuring the people wouldn't really use the tables much but they made it seem to the people you could use it all day for whatever you wanted. Then when people started actually using the tables all day because someone was selling sandwiches in town (but not allowed to have tables in their shop) the coffee shop decided to double dip and wanted to charge the sandwich shop for its customers coming over to eat at the coffee shop tables. Though the coffee shop was already charging people a monthly table fee.

To me it comes down to the cable companies got into the internet business and charged you to be able to have a certain speed at any time for as much as you want. Originally web pages didn't use much so it wasn't a strain and people were throwing out unused resources they were paying for left and right. Now that people are actually using up the resources they are paying for we are finding it was a bit of a shell game the cable company was charging for that they didn't have the resources to give you all you want (up to the speed you pay for but not always at the speed you pay for and certainly never more) as long as you want.

You are already paying for a bandwidth that should always be available and should always be at the speed you pay for. Though the speed you pay for I believe is more of a max speed but not guaranteed. Even though the way it is presented it feels like a guarantee. You use to never use all of this but now with all these other options on the internet you are actually trying to use your bandwidth you have been paying for. They are also tagging you if you try to use your bandwidth you pay for and throttle you down for it. Then you have to wait a week, month, or until you call to complain so you can get your speed back that you still were paying for even during the throttle process.

Netflix and these other companies are also already paying for their internet access and servers so that they can hold and upload the data.

[mightyleemoon]

The coffee shop thing was just weird to begin with since an ISP is about providing the internet...the roadway where business are allowed to put up shops. They aren't a shop.

It would be more like if a company came into a town and laid down some roads and charged a toll to use that road. Then, some business start putting up some shops. One of those shops starts to sell dildos and those dildos start flying off the shelf. Now, the company that laid the road is all "Wait, I want in on that dildo action." So, they, too, open up a dildo shop. But, since they own the road, they decide that anyone who wants to visit the first dildo shop has to drive over some spikes and pay an additional toll in order to get into their parking lot. Meanwhile, they make sure the entrance to their shop is perfectly paved and toll free.

I mean, they own the road and it's not like this other shop is able to build a different road since that land is already occupied. So, they should be able to do what they want because they were there first. And, any business they decide to get into, they should be able to cripple any competitor because...their road.

[lachisbackisback]

The government, mostly state and county, have provided these easements/resources in trade of individuals getting cable, internet, and phone. This is the same with power, phone, or anything that the government isn't providing themselves. It's a way for them to ensure people can still utilize these resources and not have to provide it themselves.

These aren't or, as the people for repealing net neutrality, shouldn't be able to be leveraged later to hinder or control the business of the companies who actually laid the infrastructure.

As I pointed out previously with electric companies, BT in the UK, and Cell phone companies, they are able to charge competitors to use their infrastructure. They took advantage of government easements and rebates/tax credits as well.

We see this trade all over the world. Company "x" provides infrastructure and government provides land, allows company to operate, etc. Unless the government were to buy out the companies infrastructure or run their own, I don't believe they have a right to retroactively say, "We originally provided easement and gave you tax credits to set up your infrastructure. Now we are going to step in and regulate your company".

I think you're operating under the misapprehension that these companies didn't know they would be subject to regulation and monitoring via the FCC when they established their infrastructure. They're not even disputing that, or that they should be regulated. They knew it going in. They're simply trying to change the way in which they're regulated. So it's not being leveraged later, as you say. It's been leveraged the whole time, and your argument is that infrastructure is the excuse for abolished the regulations in place or modifying them in any way the businesses see fit, which is what I disagree with.

The only wiggle room is that the FCC couldn't have possibly known the exact way in which to regulate the internet when it was a fledgling thing, so naturally regulations will shift over time. This still does not mean, however, that infrastructure itself is a catch-all for the regulations to bend to the universal will of the ISPs.

Also, regarding the dark path, you're right. That stuff does go on all the time. But the truly dark path isn't that companies will do terrible things. Of course they will. They only care about the bottom line. The truly dark path is when the citizens of a country are convinced to agree with them doing those things, and actively champion their right to do so as a core part of their personal ethos.

I mean, look at it. Most people in your country don't care that the EPA was already toothless due to perpetual under-funding, and is now being actively gutted. They don't care that companies do things like run cost-benefit analyses on whether to repair their gas line infrastructure or simply pay the damages when people start their truck near them and are incinerated, at the same time knowing they won't be fined much for the leaks. They also don't care that the damages the company will pay are exceptionally limited by legislation in order to make it a viable option for the company in the first place, all through the magic of lobbying.

So yeah, it's an absolute mess, but the really shocking thing about it is that people have slowly been convinced to think it's normal and acceptable in any way.

Also, MLM's dildo example is pretty strong. It's just missing that they were granted the ability to build the road under an agreement with the powers that be.

[deltbucs]

Good discussion here. Contrary to what some may believe in here, I definitely have some libertarian views. I voted Johnson in 2012, even. When it comes to some things like the environment, banking, and utilities, there needs to be regulations, IMO.

Last edited by deltbucs on Tue May 09, 2017 2:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[Rocker]

I definitely have some libertarian views. When it comes to somethings like the environment, banking, and utilities, there needs to be regulations, IMO.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Good discussion here. Contrary to what some may believe in here, I definitely have some libertarian views. I voted Johnson in 2012, even. When it comes to some things like the environment, banking, and utilities, there needs to be regulations, IMO.

Regulations are Tyranny!

[A Man's Part]

Good discussion here. Contrary to what some may believe in here, I definitely have some libertarian views. I voted Johnson in 2012, even. When it comes to some things like the environment, banking, and utilities, there needs to be regulations, IMO.

I think that makes you a moderate democrat.

With that said, that's exactly the person the democrats needed to run. The democrats didn't need to give Hillary the 'lifetime achievement' nomination. Even Bernie was a bit too far left to be a great candidate.

Now, I bet they are wishing they got the basics(bolded) covered for another 4-8 years rather than watching in fear as Trump goes hog wild in deregulating those specific sectors.

It's a real shame that the democrats and republicans rolled out such a terrible slate of candidates that we got stuck with Trump.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Good discussion here. Contrary to what some may believe in here, I definitely have some libertarian views. I voted Johnson in 2012, even. When it comes to some things like the environment, banking, and utilities, there needs to be regulations, IMO.

I think that makes you a moderate democrat.

With that said, that's exactly the person the democrats needed to run. The democrats didn't need to give Hillary the 'lifetime achievement' nomination. Even Bernie was a bit too far left to be a great candidate.

Now, I bet they are wishing they got the basics(bolded) covered for another 4-8 years rather than watching in fear as Trump goes hog wild in deregulating those specific sectors.

It's a real shame that the democrats and republicans rolled out such a terrible slate of candidates that we got stuck with Trump.

Indicative of the serious corruption problems plaguing both parties.

The dirty little secret is that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are manifestations of the same complaint.

The people are not in control of the government anymore. Government doesn't serve the people anymore.

The difference between the two is the source of the problem, and what to do about it.

The right says starve the beast. Gut the government until there's nothing left to corrupt. The left says eat the rich who corrupt government in the first place.

If these two sides ever decide to do both at the same time...

[deltbucs]

Good discussion here. Contrary to what some may believe in here, I definitely have some libertarian views. I voted Johnson in 2012, even. When it comes to some things like the environment, banking, and utilities, there needs to be regulations, IMO.

I think that makes you a moderate democrat.

With that said, that's exactly the person the democrats needed to run. The democrats didn't need to give Hillary the 'lifetime achievement' nomination. Even Bernie was a bit too far left to be a great candidate.

Now, I bet they are wishing they got the basics(bolded) covered for another 4-8 years rather than watching in fear as Trump goes hog wild in deregulating those specific sectors.

It's a real shame that the democrats and republicans rolled out such a terrible slate of candidates that we got stuck with Trump.

I'm of the opinion that there are multiple ways to run a government that will work. My number one concern is to get people in power that WANT to fix the real problems with this country. Give me a Libertarian like Ron Paul or someone on the far left like Bernie. As long as they are actually working for me.

[Buc2]

I think that makes you a moderate democrat.

With that said, that's exactly the person the democrats needed to run. The democrats didn't need to give Hillary the 'lifetime achievement' nomination. Even Bernie was a bit too far left to be a great candidate.

Now, I bet they are wishing they got the basics(bolded) covered for another 4-8 years rather than watching in fear as Trump goes hog wild in deregulating those specific sectors.

It's a real shame that the democrats and republicans rolled out such a terrible slate of candidates that we got stuck with Trump.

Indicative of the serious corruption problems plaguing both parties.

The dirty little secret is that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are manifestations of the same complaint.

The people are not in control of the government anymore. Government doesn't serve the people anymore.

The difference between the two is the source of the problem, and what to do about it.

The right says starve the beast. Gut the government until there's nothing left to corrupt. The left says eat the rich who corrupt government in the first place.

If these two sides ever decide to do both at the same time...

Yes...so long as it doesn't defund any of their personal pet projects, big oil or the military industrial complex.
Yes...so long as it doesn't take money out of their personal rich pockets or the pockets of their rich friends.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Indicative of the serious corruption problems plaguing both parties.

The dirty little secret is that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are manifestations of the same complaint.

The people are not in control of the government anymore. Government doesn't serve the people anymore.

The difference between the two is the source of the problem, and what to do about it.

The right says starve the beast. Gut the government until there's nothing left to corrupt. The left says eat the rich who corrupt government in the first place.

If these two sides ever decide to do both at the same time...

Yes...so long as it doesn't defund any of their personal pet projects, big oil or the military industrial complex.
Yes...so long as it doesn't take money out of their personal rich pockets or the pockets of their rich friends.

Precisely why I created the Good Government game.

[deltbucs]

Indicative of the serious corruption problems plaguing both parties.

The dirty little secret is that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are manifestations of the same complaint.

The people are not in control of the government anymore. Government doesn't serve the people anymore.

The difference between the two is the source of the problem, and what to do about it.

The right says starve the beast. Gut the government until there's nothing left to corrupt. The left says eat the rich who corrupt government in the first place.

If these two sides ever decide to do both at the same time...

Yes...so long as it doesn't defund any of their personal pet projects, big oil or the military industrial complex.
Yes...so long as it doesn't take money out of their personal rich pockets or the pockets of their rich friends.

Or the banking industry...or Big Pharma....or Mansanto...

[Buc2]

Yes...so long as it doesn't defund any of their personal pet projects, big oil or the military industrial complex.
Yes...so long as it doesn't take money out of their personal rich pockets or the pockets of their rich friends.

Or the banking industry...or Big Pharma....or Mansanto...

Right. All that **** too.

[PrimeMinister]

Indicative of the serious corruption problems plaguing both parties.

The dirty little secret is that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are manifestations of the same complaint.

The people are not in control of the government anymore. Government doesn't serve the people anymore.

The difference between the two is the source of the problem, and what to do about it.

The right says starve the beast. Gut the government until there's nothing left to corrupt. The left says eat the rich who corrupt government in the first place.

If these two sides ever decide to do both at the same time...

Yes...so long as it doesn't defund any of their personal pet projects, big oil or the military industrial complex.
Yes...so long as it doesn't take money out of their personal rich pockets or the pockets of their rich friends.

The highlighted portions describe our political landscape perfectly. We're so ****ed.

[Nano]

FCC voted today to start the process of getting rid of NN. The public comment thing starts on the 21st

[deltbucs]

FCC voted today to start the process of getting rid of NN. The public comment thing starts on the 21st

Who cares about this stuff that actually affects our lives? We have CNN waiving a shiny object and telling us that Trump is getting impeached!

[Corsair]

FCC voted today to start the process of getting rid of NN. The public comment thing starts on the 21st

Who cares about this stuff that actually affects our lives? We have CNN waiving a shiny object and telling us that Trump is getting impeached!

Why can't people carry two separate thoughts in their head at the same time?

[deltbucs]

Who cares about this stuff that actually affects our lives? We have CNN waiving a shiny object and telling us that Trump is getting impeached!

Why can't people carry two separate thoughts in their head at the same time?

You've never heard of the term "distraction" before? Don't play dumb.

[NYBF]

*bump*

[mightyleemoon]

The coffee shop thing was just weird to begin with since an ISP is about providing the internet...the roadway where business are allowed to put up shops. They aren't a shop.

It would be more like if a company came into a town and laid down some roads and charged a toll to use that road. Then, some business start putting up some shops. One of those shops starts to sell dildos and those dildos start flying off the shelf. Now, the company that laid the road is all "Wait, I want in on that dildo action." So, they, too, open up a dildo shop. But, since they own the road, they decide that anyone who wants to visit the first dildo shop has to drive over some spikes and pay an additional toll in order to get into their parking lot. Meanwhile, they make sure the entrance to their shop is perfectly paved and toll free.

I mean, they own the road and it's not like this other shop is able to build a different road since that land is already occupied. So, they should be able to do what they want because they were there first. And, any business they decide to get into, they should be able to cripple any competitor because...their road.

Anybody want to be my business partner?

[Phantom Phenom]

I'll say this again you dumbfuck.

If you don't like it then tough ****

Get used to seeing this kind of thing show up on your favorite websites if NetNeutrality isn't preserved. Spread the word

[mightyleemoon]

Who are you talking to?

What kind of thing will show up on our favorite websites?

Are you going to be okay?

[Zarniwoop]

His post does seem quite mbd- ish