Mon May 08, 2017 6:35 pm
lachisbackisback wrote:Buc2 wrote: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.
Mon May 08, 2017 6:55 pm
Mon May 08, 2017 7:02 pm
Mon May 08, 2017 7:07 pm
Mountaineer Buc wrote: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.
Mon May 08, 2017 7:29 pm
Mon May 08, 2017 7:41 pm
lachisbackisback wrote: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.
Tue May 09, 2017 7:17 am
uscbucsfan wrote: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?
uscbucsfan wrote: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.
Tue May 09, 2017 9:14 am
Tue May 09, 2017 9:39 am
Tue May 09, 2017 10:12 am
uscbucsfan wrote: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".
Tue May 09, 2017 1:59 pm
Tue May 09, 2017 2:24 pm
deltbucs wrote:I definitely have some libertarian views. When it comes to somethings like the environment, banking, and utilities, there needs to be regulations, IMO.
Tue May 09, 2017 2:43 pm
deltbucs wrote: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.
Wed May 10, 2017 12:22 am
deltbucs wrote: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.
Wed May 10, 2017 12:45 am
A Man's Part wrote:deltbucs wrote: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.
Wed May 10, 2017 7:15 am
A Man's Part wrote:deltbucs wrote: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.
Wed May 10, 2017 7:38 am
Mountaineer Buc wrote:A Man's Part wrote:
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...
Wed May 10, 2017 7:47 am
Buc2 wrote:Mountaineer Buc wrote: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.
Wed May 10, 2017 7:48 am
Buc2 wrote:Mountaineer Buc wrote: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.
Wed May 10, 2017 7:55 am
deltbucs wrote:Buc2 wrote: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...
Wed May 10, 2017 2:41 pm
Buc2 wrote:Mountaineer Buc wrote: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.
Thu May 18, 2017 10:16 pm
Fri May 19, 2017 6:06 am
Nano wrote:FCC voted today to start the process of getting rid of NN. The public comment thing starts on the 21st
Fri May 19, 2017 2:01 pm
deltbucs wrote:Nano wrote: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!
Fri May 19, 2017 2:28 pm
Corsair wrote:deltbucs wrote: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?
Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:07 am
Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:15 am
mightyleemoon wrote: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.
Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:38 pm
Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:53 pm
Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:16 pm