Because capitalists want super profits
|
Because capitalists want super profits
who says consumer's interests aren't being served now ? What site can you not log onto ?
Until you educate yourself this conversation is over. You sound very ignorant on the whole subject.
The pot calling the kettle black again we always know when you run out of constructive argument Karma
Ask me any questions on the subject clete. I work in this field.
that's alright . Didn't really want a conversation with you anyway. If you mean I am ignorant because I don't agree that greedy capitalists are ruining the net and the heavy hand of government is the solution then indeed we have nothing more to say .
Control of the Net is but a small part of the overall puzzle of profit seeking capitalists. A capitalist who isn't greedy is like saying a snake won't bite. They both do what they do.
I think that snake analogy should reflect the nature of capitalists as a python, squeezing the life out of the economy
ummm no . The fall out has begun. Investment by providers is taking a pause .
AT&T to pause fiber spending on net neutrality uncertainty | ReutersQuote:
"We can't go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,"
Cisco says the same thing. My answer is: don't care.
So after buying its wireless and satellite competitors out for $50 billion bucks, Ma Bell willchill its expansion by 3 billion next year.Quote:
AT&T, whose $48.5 billion bid for DirecTV (DTV.O) is under government review, said on Friday that it would also pay $1.7 billion to acquire Mexican wireless operator Iusacell. It trimmed its 2015 capital spending outlook to $18 billion from $21 billion.
Still no definitions of the regulations they feel hurt them. Its always soaring rhetoric followed by regulations. Well which ones? And what the hell is utility style regulations?Quote:
At the same conference on Wednesday, Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo struck a somewhat lighter tone but also said the FCC could restrict "paid prioritization" deals, where content companies pay for faster downloads of some websites or applications, without pursuing utility-style regulations.
Its like hollering taxes are too high, and then you never pay them because of loopholes, and deductions. Hell Tom, Romney pays whatever tax rate he wants, doesn't matter what the rate is. Or the country he hides his money in that he never pays taxes on.
Poor AT&T.
1930s type restrictions ;rules written nearly 80 years ago for plain old telephone service,designed by socialists to stifle competition in an industry and restrict players in the game to the chosen few.Quote:
And what the hell is utility style regulations?
You want the nation to have a network of fiber optics ... you expect the industry to construct the infrastructure ,and then you want to screw them so that you can get your Netflix cheap. (while they conversly absorb up to 40% of the entire commercial internet virtually for free, after paying only a small flat fee. )
But then again ,Netflix and other Silicon Valley companies are huge Dem donors ...so of course they are doing their share of 'rent seeking " in return . The Dem liberal cronyism machine at it's best. Title II will be a defacto government price setting . Hugo Chavez is smiling from his grave .
“The growth of the Internet and the rapid adoption of mobile technology have been great American success stories, made possible by a light regulatory touch,” “This approach has freed innovators to develop and sell the products people want—and create jobs in the process—without waiting around for government permission.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell
You worry about consumers . Let me ask you .....do you pay more for higher speed access ? Of course you do . It's logical you should .It's your choice . No one is forcing you to buy that modem .
But under your system,if I'm a Verizon customer and don't use Netflix ,Youtube ,or other high usage streamers ,then I have to subsidize other users with my fees for usage. (oh wait ,you don't think those "greedy "providers won't pass on the costs ? You are full of contradictions . )Ask yourself why should ratepayers absorb the transmission costs of companies like Netflix if they don't use the service ?
Or Warren Buffett who complains his taxes are too low and then doesn't pay them at all.Quote:
Its like hollering taxes are too high, and then you never pay them because of loopholes, and deductions. Hell Tom, Romney pays whatever tax rate he wants, doesn't matter what the rate is.
BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
You already pay the highest access rates in the world for the lowest bandwidth.
exactly my point .
Quote:
"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," says Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy.
Although there are several national companies, local markets tend to be dominated by just one or two main providers.
Quote:
And what the hell is utility style regulations?
1930s type restrictions ;rules written nearly 80 years ago for plain old telephone service,designed by socialists to stifle competition in an industry and restrict players in the game to the chosen few.
Show me how a private enterprise is prevented by the government from building a network from scratch to compete with the big boys. Links to regulations would be great.
You want the regs for every municipality in the country ? The fact is that many municipalities have specific, individualized noncompete agreements with telecom and cable providers . As an example ;for NY, it's cable provider is exclusivelyTime-Warner . With kickbacks and cheap or free internet service to government buildings, it's not even clear that those cities even want to change the status quo. So yes if you looked at the US as a whole you would think there is plenty of competititon. But the truth is that exclusive franchising is written into local laws .
Nah, it's not. It's a combination of those kickbacks, industry collusion, and just plain overwhelming barriers to entry. It's right for the gov to protect their citizens from predatory practices.
Must be wonderful to live in a "free" countryQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
aint nothing 'free ' about living here in the people's Republic of NY .
Well leave but you think things are bad wait until the illadvised TPP is in place
Well that's a subject worthy of it's own OP ...but here it is :
TPP is a free trade agreement considered the “cornerstone of the Obama Administration's economic policy in the Asia Pacific,” that is neither about trade nor freedom . Would you expect anything else from the emperor ? The mouth piece of the adm ,the NY Slimes endorses it... so that raises my warning radar right there .
The fact that it is on 'fast track' and is being negotiated in secret is another reason for alarm. Although it is called a “free trade” agreement, the TPP is not really mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 points , only 5 deal with trade issues. Most would set rules on non-trade matters that affect our daily lives ie food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, financial regulation etc. It's about bigger government, stricter laws, and less accountability.Our domestic policies would be required to comply with the TPP rules.
The kicker is that we already have trade agreements with 6 of the nations in the group . The only one of any major economy that we don't have an agreement with is Japan. The other 4 nations have economies the size of Pennsylvania combined.
The emperor plans on using the unconstitutional procedure called 'Fast Tracking ;'(which expired in 2007),to bypass much of Congressional authority regarding powers to pass trade treaties(The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur).
In fairness ,this has been the defacto means of getting trade agreements passed since Nixon. Regardless ,Fast Tracking should not be renewed ,and any treaty the emperor makes using it should be challenged and declared unconstitutional .
Now if the emperor were to submit this to the Senate under the 2/3 rule ,he possibly could get it passed anyway. The Dems still hold the majority through the end of the year ,and I suspect there are enough Repubics willing to surrender sovereignty to international authority .
It's very simple ......if you want real free trade ,make reciprocal agreements to lower tariffs. That doesn't take a 29 point agreement to accomplish.
We can agree on the prudence of examining TPP more diligently, but since repubs have the Senate, fast tracking is up to them isn't it? I mean if they holler about everything else the Prez has wanted, why aren't they hollering now?
Just asking.
I believe I addressed that in my comment . and I suspect there are enough Repubics willing to surrender sovereignty to international authority .
Big statist crony socialism is the only thing bipartisan in Washington
You mean to say Tom there is a trade agreement where america doesn't come out on top and bleed everyoneelse, but you initiated your buy in to this agreement, you wanted in, like there was a market you didn't control and you couldn't keep your grimey hands off it or just maybe you wanted to beat China
I told it like it is . It may be an agreement ;but most of it is not about trade . Nor is it free trade. It is big government imposing itself in the market . Let me ask you ;why is your country involved ?
On this issue here there is bi-partisan opposition.
Radical lefty Sen Elizabeth Warren said :
“I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant,” “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”
Tea Party conservatives like Michele Bachmann and Rand Paul have also voiced opposition to 'Obamatrade ' . Unfortunately I think the Repubic beltway majority will allow a fast track.
Why is my country involved? Why wouldn't we be involved, one of our major trading partners is involved and yet we are a small nation linking with other SMALL nations, why is your country involved? To dominate markets?
Tell me Tom why is Obama touting climate change? Kowtowing to China now? We have an independent point of view and yet we are not allowed to have it, we must be pushed back into the fold but if we take a leaf out of america's book we will promise everything and deliver nothing and china is allowed to go on polluting without even a whimper
the last thing you should do is ask me to defend the emperor . His climate agreement with China is absurd. It's like the Popeye character Wimpy .
hamburger - YouTube
We have to produce immediate results and China ......some time in the future.
That's why you are a fanatic and all your comments are tainted with fanaticism.Quote:
the last thing you should do is ask me to defend the emperor
Fanatical | Define Fanatical at Dictionary.com
glad you are sticking to the issue instead of cheap seat Ad hominem
China was doing nothing before, but now they have agreed to try, and that's a step in the right direction as we have seen many countries commit to carbon reduction, and exceed goals once they got the ball rolling. I find it interesting those that decry the Chinese agreement also obstruct the presidents effort here at home too, and even push for more dirty stuff to be brought here from Canada and refined and sold to the world markets with no benefit to American reserves, supplies, or even prices.
I am not even sure at this point if the TPP countries involved are all in with this deal, just the rich guys who will benefit from it are pushing it.
You mean like using "emperor" all the time?Quote:
cheap seat Ad hominem
BTW you went off your own OP topic LOL.
so Tal what side do you come down on ? The emperor and his fellow crony socialists ,or Democrats like Elizabeth Warren (even Harry Reid opposed it ) .
As for China ,talk is cheap ... The US corporations have already done a good job at pollution reductions . What the emperor is committing us to is standards that only we will comply with while China makes empty promises to comply at a future date . Listen again to what was said ... The emperor pledged additional reductions to up to 28% in the next decade . In contrast Xi Jinping, did not pledge any reductions but instead set a target for China’s emissions to peak by 2030.
I am for process and procedure Tom, not fast tracking mystery legislation, nor subsidized companies making profits without the risks, and bearing responsibilities, while they pass costs onto consumers, and write off the losses.
That requires rules and regulations, fair to consumers and business and all the people. FAIR markets not the scam of free markets.
We will see what Chinas learning curve is despite the apparent wiggle room, as we know we can't make China do a damn thing in the first place. If they want to choke on their own atmosphere who gives a rat's patoot! But fact is if you look at the way the Earth spins, others are adversely affected too!
Simple SCIENCE.
you see...that's where your side don't get it . Corporations are owners ,workers share like Solyndra ?Like Ivanpah ,owned by Goggle ,among other corporations favored by the emperor ? You know the company that is asking for a $540 million grant to pay off their $1.6 billion Federal loan ?Quote:
nor subsidized companies making profits without the risks, and bearing responsibilities, while they pass costs onto consumers,
Can 1 Power Plant Clean Up Coal and Make Money? - Scientific American
INVESTMENT TOM!Quote:
Gas prices are too low right now in the United States for many places to meet that criterion, he said. And many other countries that have a similar type of coal that in theory could use Kemper's gasification technology may not have the financial resources to consider a similar facility, he said. The Southern Co. plant benefited from $270 million in Department of Energy funding.
I have some thoughts on the matter that the elders of AMHD may or may not find interesting. I would like to clarify, I am not taking sides or following the big business branch the conversation has since taken.
First of all lets assess the OP. Obama wants to turn the internet into a public utility, in reality he has sent out a message to the FCC "urging" them to reclassify the internet, under Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as a public utility, much like other telecommunications companies. Currently it is classified under Title I which governs information exchange, which according to the New York Times, "the Internet had a better chance to thrive if broadband were classified as an 'information service.'" This also allows it to be loosely regulated, regulation on information services borders on infringing on free speech. Where as Title II deals with the carriers rather than the information carried.
I would like to point out here, that the FCC has broken types of information to be carried, down into classes such as, but not limited to "day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, Government" thus applying charges "just and reasonable" as seen fit, and written in a way that the list is not all inclusive. Furthermore, it is written in that the FCC can request "physical connections" be made among carriers to other carriers as seen fit to the public interest. This also specifies that carriers will not be forced to force general circulation without a nominal charge. It is however written in such a way that it is very open ended so that the "Commissioner may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest."
It also covers both wire and radio services, not limiting the communication to one type of media, which with fiber and other advances are sure to be specified. On the consumer end it also protects our rights in that it ensures no "unreasonable... preference or advantage" against any type or class of person or any type of locality by any device or means. I might mention that Google (especially YouTube) in Oklahoma City sucks due to high bandwidth requests being unfulfilled.
It also calls for open books among the carriers so that its costs may be assessed by the public and the FCC itself. It also calls for review by the FCC for new costs and charges among providers. This also allows the FCC to prescribe just and reasonable charges overriding the companies themselves.
The rest of Title II deals with recovery of damages, complaints against the commission, liability, paperwork, securities, property of the carriers, etc. There is a clause that deals with laying new lines, in that carriers must first inquire the commission for using other existing lines or laying new ones, to be in the public interest and some exceptions for emergency situations. The following hundred pages or so deal with telephone specific regulations and equipment regulation among providers.
Currently ISP's are only regulated by Title I as said before, which deal mostly with the organization of the FCC itself, the basic rights that none shall be discriminated against, and the dissemination of AT&T itself. It also deals with fee schedules, and budgets of the FCC etc.
Not a bad idea in my opinion, broadband in the U.S. is overpriced and with low quality at that. ISP's (carriers) would no longer be able to slow traffic based on content or random urges, rather only offer what is fair and just to all. But this is neither here nor there. Moving on past the legal bs...
Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T all complain about the idea; Comcast particularly citing section 706 that in times of war, the president can have a "Preference with any carrier he chooses." They all cite an open internet, however they are more than willing to have you pay for such services, provided you pay whatever they are asking, deal with their advertising campaigns, and comply with their own individual "Fairness" policies. The rest of the time they screw you, and don't think twice about it.
A lot of the fuss is surrounding the mobile market. The bandwidth over the mobile waves is significantly limited compared to the wired systems, needless to say the new systems that are up and coming. The FCC is currently working on a "hybrid" legal approach that encompasses the now and later without overlaying on one individual market.
Net Neutrality is not an entirely different concept. In 2003 Tim Wu came up with the idea as an extension of the "Common Carrier" principle discussed previously. It does guarantee some more rights, but that is the whole issue being debated right now. It focuses on equal treatment of data without any specification as where it is from. Fantastic idea except where it can be abused, again where the FCC's policies of classification come in handy, maybe with a more revised modern version that may or may not exclude day and night usage, etc. As of April the FCC was considering a new set of specifications that would target ISP's traffic directly. I guess the biggest hit would be to the ISP's. They would have a legal duty to not sell their own services but rather treat all services equally.
There are always loopholes of course and Verizon has warned that there will still be "fast lanes" of traffic for certain content, but the FCC specifies that to be for emergency channels (911 calls, real time medical information transfers, etc.) Of course a business will receive a higher class than me, I don't pay as much for the bandwidth, nor can I justifiably use as much. Their biggest complaint is that there will still be fast lanes. So doing nothing is better?
I'm not a huge fan of regulation, but the idea that it should only fall into the hands of the select few giants is not my idea of success either.
Anyway... my own ideas of potential laws that would support many sides of the Rubik's cube.
In the old days the world had "Internet Nodes" now called "Exchange Points" or "Principle Data Routes" that handled much of the internet traffic (Beginning with ARPA). They hosted millions of sub-networks that in turn provided and used bandwidth on a cost per unit basis. In turn the nodes allocated bandwidth to other nodes on a quid pro quo basis; they offered and used more or less equal bandwidth. The costal carriers began collaborating with other international telecom companies to lay cable across the Atlantic and eventually around the world.
I think the internet should be offered among carriers and on a quid pro quo basis. This would create a new market for bandwidth on the upload and download markets. Netflix and Amazon would have to team up with consumer carriers to balance the upload and download streams. You may find some of the commercial giants venturing into their own telecom companies much like Google has in recent history.
Furthermore, is there any reason why the internet cannot be more or less free for consumers. Google Fiber offers free internet, you pay to have it set up, it pays their costs, and you now have some of the best internet in the world. Users who are classified as business, organizational, educational, etc.(according to the FCC classifications), would have to offer a peer to peer exchange of data, major network contribution (much like the first T1 lines in the old days), or pay a premium that offsets the costs for providers.
Another applicable idea I think could dominate a new internet would be pure peer to peer networking across very complex virtual sub-networking. There are many paths on the network, an many routes that may be taken in any given request. I propose a virtual encrypted network that would lie within the bandwidth and storage of any connected device, modeled after the torrent protocols. Everyone receiving and contributing little chunks of information to the greater whole. As an extension of this idea all modems on the utility network would be required to offer an open hotspot or wired repeater for the surrounding area, a private and public network application which has proven safe to enterprise scale networks. I believe Bright House/Time Warner already do this in some areas.
These principles would not only reduce load on any one given provider (increasing competition/reducing demand/increasing supply/lowering costs) would also cause immediate growth, you now reduce load on all forms of communication, especially with the advent of smart devices that understand the TCP/IP protocols. Even antiquated devices would be easily adaptable to such a network.
Going on a limb, an idea I read in a book once, was cellular devices that piggy backed off each other creating an adaptive network of their own. Sharing bandwidth and broadcasting costs among the subscribers to minimize dead-zones and load. Newer and older technologies including all forms of optical, radio, and copper, could be adapted in such a way that everything shares the whole internet equally, more or less.
I wanted to post a couple of days ago before everyone had been sidetracked and arguing different topics, but it took a little while to put this together with my work schedule.
Thanks for listening to my rant guys.
One sure way to kill a debate is to post a page at a time
II thought it was a refreshing change from the opinionated babble generally spewed here. Sorry you couldn't keep up. I totally agree with why leave the rules up to the companies?
"mazing" way your mind works, for a socialist that is. Tal the point of government is to regulate, the point of enterprise is to innovate and invest, government should only get involved in infurstructure when the market won't take the risk or the capital required is too big or the public interest must be protected, it doesn't take a page to say that. Where I come from government acts to ensure monopolistic power isn't exercised to the detriment of the consumer and I see nothing wrong with your government acting in that manner, but the nervious nellie's don't like that
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:40 PM. |