 |
What do you think about that ? Not being content with a gvt takeover of healthcare ,he now wants to turn the internet into a public utility . He sees a problem in the internet and as usual thinks only the government can fix it . Oh and btw ...he won't wait for Congressional action. He instead will reclassify the net as a utility subject to the regulatory control of the FCC. Not to worry . The emperor assures us that if we like our internet provider we can keep our ISP .
Not a valid interpretation of what he did. In fact, his announcement was to protect the freedom of the Internet. He took this action to prevent cable companies from giving preference to certain content. The idea being that a 500mg file from site A would take approximately the same time to download as a 500mg file from Site B. The regulation that he asked of the FCC was to insure that this "Net Neutrality" is maintained and no content providers given preference over others.
It's OK Tom there isn't a red under every bed. Obama is correct to prevent the use of monopolistic power and keep the internet open, there should be more of it
The FCC has no business in regulating the internet other then the frequecies that are used to transmit the product over the airwaves. If the FCC gets its fingers into it then look out because they will seek to censor the internet.
That's the whole point of net neutrality!
the whole point of net neutrality is censorship ? I quite agree.The emperor lusts for the power over the net that the Chinese have.
The whole point is to prevent censorship by large monopolies that provide internet service.
Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course it doesn't help the debate if you have a mistrust of government, which while I can understand, I wouldn't trust the large cable providers to play by the rules either. Didn't the banks, and oil companies teach you that?Quote:
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia Universitymedia law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4]Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[5] A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.
So if you are defending the rights of providers to discriminate and limit access of data, then that's a form of censorship wouldn't you agree?Quote:
A number of net neutrality interest groups have emerged, including SaveTheInternet.com which frames net neutrality as an absence of discrimination, saying it ensures Internet providers cannot block, speed up, or slow down content on the basis of who owns it, where it came from, or where it's going. It helps create the situation where any site on the Internet could potentially reach an audience as large as that of a TV or radio station, and its loss would mean the end for this level of freedom of expression.[30]
Chairman Wheeler's Stmt on President Obama's Stmt On Open Internet | FCC.gov
Tom trusts corporations, he doesn't trust government. He has made it abundantly clear he thinks money should rule and make our decisions for us, after all capitalists have brought us the benefit and dignity of unemployment, the export of industries, the collapse of the financial system
Thats not the whole point of net neutrality. The point of net neutrality is a busines model. It is not about censorship. It is about trying to take over what is suppose to be equal and segment it into a captive audiance.
This is something that should be handled by the internet commision and not the government. They have the power to revoke the IP slots for major ISP's and if they do that the whole ISP goes down. Most ISP's wouldnt chance it. It would mean the end for them if their online access is revoked. By allowing the FCC into it you will shut it down.
It works great here in China. There is no porn, there is no complaints about the government, so all we read is how wonderful and happy life is here.
Marvellous you live in a socialist utopia and like it and are bored out of your brain
in the emperor's perfect world that is exactly how it would work. They have already floated the "fairness doctrine " as a threat to any regular media that doesn't toe the line . They have in a few cases went to direct intimidation of individual reporters .
Take away the threat of free speech from "pajama people" and life is good.
The added bonus is that it opens a whole new avenue for the taxing authority for the leviathan .
Tal you are being disengenuous . Almost every cable service acts as a defacto regional utility ;;aka monopoly with the government's blessing . That's how they got so big in the 1st place . The answer is more competition ,more free market .
The complete opposite. Where the hell do you get your news from??Quote:
the whole point of net neutrality is censorship ? I quite agree.
Obama is on the right track here.
Para, I saw the sarcasm in Chuck's response, didn't you?
There is a reason for this. Wiring an area is expensive. If the cable companies were not assured of a virtual monopoly, they would not have made the investment. The other way to go would have been for government to fund the wiring and lease it to content providers. In your ideal of a free market, companies would only invest where there is the opportunity for profit. In the case of cable, the opportunity for profit only exists if there is a control on competition.Quote:
Almost every cable service acts as a defacto regional utility ;;aka monopoly with the government's blessing . That's how they got so big in the 1st place . The answer is more competition ,more free market .
Of course I understand irony amd sarcasm, but either way China is not a shinning example of anything. Look they have agreed to cap their emissions by 2030 which basically means they expect their economy to downturn around about then, it is a nothing promise and all this idea that capitalists have to have a monopoly to invest is a nothing promise too. Utilities in any form compete and they will make investments it is just that they are not going to rush in the less profitable markets unless government makes it convenient. Either you have a market mechanism or you don't. Sooner or later the poles and wires business will go the way of the dinosaur, it is just a matter of time and in the case of cable a question of available spectrum
Scott that was the same excuse they used for decades of monopoly by Ma Bell. We suffered over priced services for years until the market was opened up.
That's right tom, it was a natural monopoly. The government came to the rescue of the consumer by allowing interconnection. That was before big biz started owning politicians.
I get it that you love government sanctioned monopolies.
I said the exact opposite. I like that the government broke up the monopoly. In the same vein that I like the fact that the government is preventing the wire owners from screwing the consumers in this net neutrality issue.
Its not an excuse, it's a fact of life. The monopoly was broken up because the investment had been recouped by that time. In the case of cable entertainment, technology advances have allowed for competition (i.e. Satellite, use of already installed phone lines).Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So let me ask you. Lets say you have a product to sell. But for consumers to use that product, you have to make a significant investment in infrastructure. Would you make that investment if others could use your infrastructure to sell their competing product without compensating you?
I don't believe in monopolies. That doesn't mean that other competing companies gets a free ride either . I would charge them a fee for the access. Transmission lines for electicity was strung all over the country . The power company here at least is forced to carry electricity generated by other providers ,especially so called 'green ' energy producers . But providers of the net are not subject to a single transmission vehicle . You can get your service through fiber optic lines ,through your cable provider ,by satt .etc. The service I use does not own the phone line to my modem.
The problem is that the US (and by some extent Canada as well) does not have true competition in the internet access field. Let to their own devices the handful of providers would (and do) collude to offer less services for higher fees. An example of this is their wanting to mess with net neutrality to further increase their revenues.
or maybe companies like Netflix wants to demand unlimted capacity without having to pay for that capacity . Makes for a great business model when someone else invested in the infrastructure that makes your business run.
Yes I agree there is a gray area here whereas one application uses up a larger percentage of the available bandwidth. There hasn't been any proof yet that users are experiencing a degradation of service due to Netflix's success. But it's no reason to instituted a tiered approach for access to different kinds of content.
so then if that is so,who exactly is complaining about access ? I think this is a "solution" looking for a problem . The net has worked fine in nations that don't put the heavy hand of government regulation on it's back. It has been one of the most innovative industries in recent decades exactly because the major companies have put the investment into the infrastructure that makes the industry work.
I don't see a problem with startups paying to piggy-back on that ;and they should indeed pay based on their usage . That would be the fair solution.
You keep going back and forth between a business model for carriers, and providers, but ignore the consumer in this deal. Don't they at least deserve a minimum requirement of service for their payments? Of service choices? The FCC can only set a standard for that requirement no matter the lease agreements between carriers and providers, very similar to what the regulations are between utility company providers and carriers.
You can blur the lines between them all you want but the reality is that the consumer is the one who returns investments from revenue. You either are for an open internet with no technical censorship,or you want the internet to sell a product that makes profit for less censorship.
The law has to keep up with the technology, whether you like laws or not. An example of the form of censorship you are facing is a boss firing you for content you post on Facebook, or even making your Facebook accessible to the company as a requirement for employment. If they can circumvent your right to privacy, what makes you think they wouldn't use censorship to drive more revenue streams through a tiered system of access to content, data, and information?
Make ISP's and carriers, under one umbrella, telecommunications, and protect consumers rights to no censorships, at a minimum. They can pay for more movies channel bundles, but NOT data and content. You are against monopolies Tom, but there can be NO competition unless you have a level playing field for the smaller competitors.
It may not fix the broken business model manipulated by larger businesses, but does set a minimum standard that CONSUMERS don't get raped by.
You have never been for consumers though have you?
You are correct.Quote:
I think this is a "solution" looking for a problem .
Again correct. The problem today in the U.S. is that the oligopoly of internet access businesses are trying to mess with that. The government regulation to keep the status quo. You really need to read up on this subject, you're all over the map.Quote:
The net has worked fine in nations that don't put the heavy hand of government regulation on it's back.
monopoly cannot exist without government assistance through franchises, protectionism, and other means. .I contend that the very providers that people are complaining about (the oligopoly ) is already a defacto gpvernment supported monopoly . The pols give the absurd argument that natural monopolies exist because it would be too inconvenient to duplicate the infrastructure . That is nonsense .
Tal the cable companies you are complaining about could not operate under their model except that the governement allows them exclusive territory of operation. I guarantee that even as few as 2 or 3 competing for the business would greatly benefit the consumer because they would not get away with their packaging policies. They can belly ache about duplication of infrastructure all they want to .It would be better that our utility poles to have 2 or 3 cable lines snaking through our communities than for us to be hostage to their service .Service would be better and cheaper just due to the increase in the option. The level playing field you seek is the free market.
LOL, government never stopped the investors from creating cable companies or running lines or even leasing their uses to others Tom, nor did it stop bigger companies from expanding by gobbling up smaller ones creating the monopolies. My own ISP included. No doubt yours either.
As you have done many times before, bellyache about regulations and then use the free market capitalists system to justify screwing consumers and minimize the demand in the supply and demand business equation. That's the BROKEN business model that favors profits before people, and subjects ordinary people to less service for a higher fee.
The free market ain't free, it's manipulated, but you are free to worship it all the same.
There you are wrong. Monopolies exist for several reasons, some being a natural monopoly and another being collusion among businesses that result in an oligopoly. The situation here is a little of both.Quote:
monopoly cannot exist without government assistance through franchises, protectionism, and other means
Natural monopolies do not exist by definition without government approval . That's why they started the so called public utility system in the 1st place. I see no benefit at all in natural monopolies.
I'll let Uncle Miltie explain the rest .
Milton Friedman - Monopoly - YouTube
"Corporations own the government .They need to be regulated" "by whom " ? "BY THE GOVERNMENT " lol
I know that you have a constant need to bash anything that has to do with the government, especially when a liberal one is power, but you've proven that you've lost any objectivity in these matters. In this case the government is going to bat for you, the consumer. You don't like monopolies, no one does, is it good when the government breaks them up?
yes of course ;especially the ones that have grown "too big to fail " because of their relationship with the government . The breakup of Ma Bell was a great move by the government on behalf of the consumer . But it should be recognized that Ma Bell could not have existed without a hat tip from the government .
Ok, so?Quote:
But it should be recognized that Ma Bell could not have existed without a hat tip from the government .
AT&T Divestiture - What Killed Ma Bell? by Melvin D. Barger
Ma Bell is back. Should you be afraid?
Thought I would dig these out before Tom blathers about the free market and unspecified government regulations... AGAIN!Quote:
The enduring danger is that AT&T will instead be the evil giant who uses its power to mess with everything attached to the AT&T system. Today, that would mean messing with search engines, slowing down your cousin's blog, degrading YouTube or voice-over-IP, and so on. Guarding against those dangers are the milestone network-neutrality rules—the most important rules the FCC has made AT&T agree to. But those rules will last only two years, and it is now clear that Congress needs to make those rules into enduring law.
Weird, Tom must learn to live in the present
the present is government nationalization of industry . no thanks .
Many nations have lived through such eras Tom, but nationalisation in the US, well it is hardly widespread
Rules and guidelines (Okay... REGULATIONS) are hardly nationalization of industry. Given the profit motive of private business, why can't consumer interests be served while those profits are being made?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 PM. |