If you're going to argue a subject I'd respectfully suggest it would be a good idea to know or learn something of it beforehand. E.g.:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Where's the competition now?

That's rather the point wrt existing broadband availability: There is little-to-none.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
You don't say? Again, where is the new competition? 2 years is plenty of time for new companies to emerge offering those of us in rural areas the same high speed internet available to major cities like NY, Chicago, Phoenix and others, right? I am a citizen of this country too, I need to have access too. Where is my 100+ mps internet? So much for NN helping me!

That is not the point or purpose of NN.

Ironically, you go on to assert...

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
For now maybe. That pandora's box is now open. How many times have we seen something start off with good intentions, only to be used to rope the citizenry into some bogus feel good safety net, or to be used directly against them? More often than not in the past 25 years.

So on the one hand you're complaining NN has done nothing to help you get broadband out in the sticks, but, on the other, are worried about government overreach... Overreach such as "encouraging" broadband providers to supply product in what they feel to be unprofitable areas, perhaps?

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Several instances have been cited already, but you fail to believe us!

Untrue.

What I have said is that just because certain government actions are bad for the country's citizens, not all are.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Somethings not answered by your posts back to me in the other thread (I read all of your links and understand them fully): How many jobs are being created to look for violations, ensure compliance, and other such nonsense?

I've no way of knowing. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be few or none. You do know what the FCC does already, right?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ensigmatic,

Can someone post link to leave the FCC comments?

who did they poll comcast?

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:
Can someone post link to leave the FCC comments?

You missed. How to comment on the FCC’s proposal to revoke net neutrality

quote:

How to comment on the FCC’s proposal to revoke net neutrality
Posted Apr 27, 2017 by Devin Coldewey

Today is the last day to comment on the FCC’s proposal to do away with net neutrality — and despite what leadership there has said, that’s definitely how the document reads. You are free to make your thoughts known on the notice of proposed rulemaking, as it’s called, and here’s how to do it.

I think they may have extended it, but, if Dec. 14th is indeed the date upon which they plan to announce their decision to revoke it, I'd say the time for comment is long past.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
who did they poll comcast?

You keep insisting Comcast supports NN when I've show that's clearly not the case. Here's another: Comcast deleted net neutrality pledge the same day FCC announced repeal - Three-year-old "no paid prioritization" pledge was suddenly removed.

TL;DR: Comcast claimed, out of one side of its corporate mouth, that it supported NN, until Ajit Pai's FCC said they were going to do away with NN. Now Comcast doesn't support NN any more.

That's not "support." That's brown-nosing the FCC.

It might help to understand Comcast's motivations if you were aware of the fact Comcast has nearly uninterrupted requests before the FCC and Justice to increase their grip on content origination and delivery.

EVIL big business MUST be controlled by the omnipotent goodness of the Federal Government who ALWAYS has your interest at heart no matter who it hurts.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
What I have said is that just because certain government actions are bad for the country's citizens, not all are.

It is more likely than not. Though I will admit that occasionally government bureaucrats make a mistake and do something not harmful. But it is a rare event.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
What I have said is that just because certain government actions are bad for the country's citizens, not all are.

It is more likely than not. Though I will admit that occasionally government bureaucrats make a mistake and do something not harmful. But it is a rare event.

The same is also true for each and every monopoly that's ever existed.

It's absurd folly to think this is a binary choice of zero regulation vs over regulation.

At present and for years now, there's been no real competition, and the existing regs - whether anti trust or NN related or anything else - aren't working... it's just that simple.

I pine away for a truly free market, too, a truly small government, too, but we're a million miles away from that, and it's never going back to it either, and everyone knows it.

Standing against NN on pure no-regs-wishes is fantasy that doesn't exist anymore, anywhere, and is no more likely than abolishing the EPA or any similar agency.

Having every single gun restriction ever rolled back to "shall not infringe" is more likely, which is to say, as much as it irritates me, it's never going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
The same is also true for each and every monopoly that's ever existed.

1. NN does not address competition or monopolies.

2. Antiquated anti-trust government regulations are actually causing more monopolistic behavior. Read this article on why telecom companies are not competing against each other:

One fascinating reason cable companies won’t willingly compete against each other

3. The solution to government regulations causing trouble in the market is not more government regulations.

The Principle of Net Neutrality is different from the current implementation, of course.

I speak of the principle, and welcome changes to the implementation. I oppose the wholesale rejection.

I've also been around long enough, and am saddened to admit, that the current anti trust laws that are also imperfect - they aren't going anywhere, and none of those issues will be fixed anytime soon, if ever, neither by the market nor the government, and reluctantly admit - in limited cases such as this - that more / different legislation is actually the solution. And I hate that it's true, but it's still true.

Just like Heller was necessary and good (as would be a law to legalize suppressors without a tax stamp) in lieu of rolling back decades of other laws, when the only actually correct solution, ideally, is to roll back all the previously bad laws.

quote:

At present and for years now, there's been no real competition, and the existing regs - whether anti trust or NN related or anything else - aren't working... it's just that simple.

Saying there is NO competition is bullshit.
It is a very expensive proposition and of course most can't just do this out of their garage.

The thing driving this is that some want to micro-manage businesses because they THINK Network Prioritization is wrong.
What is standard today is obsolete tomorrow.
Compression techniques will develop, infrastructure will be built and none of this nonsense will need to be discussed.
The OTHER driving force is the Liberal Agenda that anything big is bad and the Government MUST control.

This is one of these, choose the lesser of 2 evils scenario in my view. The FCC (Federal Cash Commission) has a valid role, although run more by lawyers today then engineers which is its own problem.

Certainly the FCC has a very limited role in keeping anarchy out of the RF (Radio Frequency Spectrum) area. There was real turmoil in 1925-27 when Commerce Sec. Hoover's attempt to reign in the chaos via his Dept. of Commerce, exploded when the Supreme Court invalidated his agreements with the members of the zoo out there in radio frequency land. This would lead to the Federal Radio Administration on '27 (and the Washington Conference with regard to allocating the international RF spectrum.

FDR of course needed more control and had Congress create the FCC, which FDR used to control the broadcasters. Too much anti-FDR news on your station and no broadcast license renewal.

I'm against net neutrality. Either the govt will 'control' the net for its purposes, and there is a lot of censoring going on already with the current Net Neutrality created by Obama (FDR 2).

Or, evil private enterprise will control it for it's evil purposes, or, they both will screw us pawns in life, laughing all the way to the Bank.

Either way Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public will get is in the (*&%^%&(*(^*%(%(%^*(%(^%*(.

I am against Net Neutrality.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Saying there is NO competition is bullshit.

Oh?

Well, I've looked. There is no 10mb/s or better alternative for me, short of having my own fiber run from wherever is the nearest fiber hub (which, besides the monthly cost, would involve 10s of thousands of dollars in the undertaking).

All those out-of-the-way places in Michigan's north, currently served primarily only by Charter: Find me a 10mb/s or better alternative for them. Same rules. Again: I've looked. (Personally, I was surprised the had anything.)

Wireless? Yeah, right. Do you know what happens to wireless nodes in areas with little-to-no "wired" broadband availability during "broadband rush hour?"

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
It is a very expensive proposition and of course most can't just do this out of their garage.

Oh, I see. Because somebody theoretically could find an alternative, perhaps for 10s of thousands in investment and thousands per month recurring fees: There's "competition?" That's your argument?

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
The Principle of Net Neutrality is different from the current implementation, of course.

I speak of the principle, and welcome changes to the implementation. I oppose the wholesale rejection.

I've also been around long enough, and am saddened to admit, that the current anti trust laws that are also imperfect - they aren't going anywhere, and none of those issues will be fixed anytime soon, if ever, neither by the market nor the government, and reluctantly admit - in limited cases such as this - that more / different legislation is actually the solution. And I hate that it's true, but it's still true.

Just like Heller was necessary and good (as would be a law to legalize suppressors without a tax stamp) in lieu of rolling back decades of other laws, when the only actually correct solution, ideally, is to roll back all the previously bad laws.

In the end that's what it comes down to. Do you trust the government to have complete control and dictatorial power over the telecom market or do you give the market (note I didn't say 'free' market, because it's not) a chance.

As much as I hate some of the telecom companies, I trust the market to force them to do the right thing far more than I trust the government to get it right.

quote:

There is no 10mb/s or better alternative for me

So THAT is your argument of NO competition.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
The Principle of Net Neutrality is different from the current implementation, of course.

I speak of the principle, and welcome changes to the implementation. I oppose the wholesale rejection.

I've also been around long enough, and am saddened to admit, that the current anti trust laws that are also imperfect - they aren't going anywhere, and none of those issues will be fixed anytime soon, if ever, neither by the market nor the government, and reluctantly admit - in limited cases such as this - that more / different legislation is actually the solution. And I hate that it's true, but it's still true.

Just like Heller was necessary and good (as would be a law to legalize suppressors without a tax stamp) in lieu of rolling back decades of other laws, when the only actually correct solution, ideally, is to roll back all the previously bad laws.

In the end that's what it comes down to. Do you trust the government to have complete control and dictatorial power over the telecom market or do you give the market (note I didn't say 'free' market, because it's not) a chance.

As much as I hate some of the telecom companies, I trust the market to force them to do the right thing far more than I trust the government to get it right.

I don't entirely disagree.

The government's failures are well known, of course.

But I think that the ISP market on the whole, the supposed free market on the whole, and the ISPs themselves have *already* proven, over and over, and still today, that they've *already* failed in that task, in the abstract, and in enough specific cases that further action is necessary. I believe they've already had, *and blown*, the chance to do it in an unregulated manner, and - I believe it's getting incrementally worse - not better.

That's it.

And I hate most government regulations, I truly do. It irks me to have to support this.

But this, access to the key communication medium for now and the future, the key delivery mechanism for news and entertainment, is too important, and certainly too important to leave in the hands of a less than a handful of enormous (near) monopolies.

Of all the things we (America at large, tax monies in general) regulate and spend tax money on, this ought to be very high on the list, IMO, and it's cheap with a large ROI by comparison. Fuck Pakistan, fuck sponsorship of Poo Sculptures, fuck kickbacks to so and so's District for some random bullshit that only benefits a few, we have more than enough resources for this, and ample reason for it, what we have is a priority problem.

And too many (but far, far from all) have good enough internet and they just don't give a shit, and too many more argue against it from a perspective of ideological purity (which helps nothing and will never come to be).

I'd like nothing more than a strict, strict interpretation of "shall not be infringed" and I will continue to argue that it's the only right answer and that the erosion we live with ought never have happened, because ideally - that's exactly right, but... it's never going to happen, and I and everyone else must deal with that, and the same idea here, IMO.

Let's not throw the baby (the Principle of NN) out with the bathwater (the implementation, or motivation behind the implementation, or which party started it, and the like).

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Not sure what to think about this anymore. Certainly in favor of free markets, but now very worried about strong political leanings of big tech companies and their willingness to suppress opposing points of view.

EXACTLY...

Just remember that the biggest proponents of Net Neutrality are the ONLY people currently suppressing speech and removing wrong think.

The same Net Neutrality supports who are afraid that the ISPs will make decisions they don't agree with are the same people who defend big tech companies for making decisions other people don't agree with because 'they are a private company, they can do whatever they want'.

How about we start regulating Google and Apple like they want us to regulate ISPs? There's almost no competition in smartphone operating systems and they have colluded before to exclude a competitor (see Gab). Google accounts for like 95% of all search so there's no competition there... yet Google regularly changed it's algorithms to show you results they want you to see.

Youtube is the only viable option for content creators to make ad supported content, no competition there and they regularly demonitize videos they don't agree with.

Meanwhile, the ISPs are aggressively non-partisan and have no history of punishing wrong think or restricting speech...

Every time I hear someone gripe about there being only one cable internet provider, I ask them about satellite internet, DSL, or 4g internet and somehow they are different...

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
So only 1.5% of human, original commenters appreciate and fall on the correct side of the free market vs. federal regulation debate?

The free market only works when there's competition. For the majority of the broadband market in the U.S.: There is none. I, for example, have only one broadband provider. And I don't live out in the sticks or in an urban armpit.

If that broadband provider should choose to throttle, say, NetFlix, a competitor to them in content delivery, then, without network neutrality they'd be quite free to do so. As they have in the past. Or say they decide they want to force me to use their VoIP services, rather than the one I choose. They could just plain block them, as another ISP was caught doing.

All network neutrality says is that if you're paying for bandwidth, you should be able to use it as you see fit, regardless of source, destination or content.

Exactly right! And in most (probably essentially all) cases, the one or two dominant carriers (usually the cable company and local land-line telco) have that monopoly due to legacy regulations giving them a protected monopoly to encourage viability of build costs for their infrastructure. The pipes, so to speak, were built on the backs of our enduring a monopoly. Let them compete on content, but don't allow them to use their "pipe" monopoly to shut out content competitors.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

There is no 10mb/s or better alternative for me

So THAT is your argument of NO competition.

That is less than half the FCC's current definition of "broadband": The FCC has changed the definition of broadband

So you can unroll your eyes, now.

Or are you stuck in the 90's, where broadband was "any constant-on Internet connection faster than dialup?"

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
Just remember that the biggest proponents of Net Neutrality are the ONLY people currently suppressing speech and removing wrong think.

Who would that be?

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
The same Net Neutrality supports who are afraid that the ISPs will make decisions they don't agree with...

That's an inaccurate portrayal of the issue. What concerns NN supporters is ISPs making choices for customers.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
.. are the same people who defend big tech companies for making decisions other people don't agree with because 'they are a private company, they can do whatever they want'.

Yeah, because those tech companies have competition.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
How about we start regulating Google and Apple like they want us to regulate ISPs? There's almost no competition in smartphone operating systems ...

That's patently, provably false. There are three current major mobile operating systems, one of which is even open-sourced (Android).

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
Google accounts for like 95% of all search so there's no competition there...

Show me how Alphabet can force me to use the Google search engine or do without any search engine. (Btw: I rarely use Google.)

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
Youtube is the only viable option for content creators to make ad supported content, ...

Show me how YouTube prevents other entrants into the market.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
Meanwhile, the ISPs are aggressively non-partisan and have no history of punishing wrong think or restricting speech...

But they have a history of controlling what their customers can access.

And, unlike Alphabet (Google), Amazon, NetFlix, Apple, etc.: If you don't like what your sole ISP offers, well, too bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
Every time I hear someone gripe about there being only one cable internet provider, I ask them about satellite internet, DSL, or 4g internet and somehow they are different...

Every time I hear somebody gripe about the high cost of electricity, I ask them about kerosene, wood, etc. and somehow they are different.

More seriously: Of those three, only LTE is feasible, and it's very expensive and slows to a crawl during peak usage hours. Satellite Internet has horrible lag and suffers rain-outs. DSL is a dying breed. After the TelComs get rid of POTS: DSL is next. (Same outside cooper plant.)

quote:

Every time I hear someone gripe about there being only one cable internet provider, I ask them about satellite internet, DSL, or 4g internet and somehow they are different...

That’s like saying who needs glocks or Sig’s when there’s hipoints and Lorcins.

quote:

quote:Originally posted by Scurvy:The same Net Neutrality supports who are afraid that the ISPs will make decisions they don't agree with... That's an inaccurate portrayal of the issue. What concerns NN supporters is ISPs making choices for customers.

Yeah, we need our Government making the decisions for us.
If every American had more bandwidth then World Peace would exist.
Even better create the 28th Amendment guaranteeing Bandwidth.