FCC Votes To Protect Net Neutrality, Reclassify Broadband

Burning_Monk said:
That would have drastic effects on every layer of the economy. Cheap fuel and cheap food is what helps propel prosperity.
Click to expand...

Hows that good ole Ethanol subsides working out? I think all food prices are a lot more now because of it. Not to mention it cost more to make Ethanol then gas. Let the market decide what the price is.
 
frelled said:
What a joke. The ISP's are the problem. They hold a monopoly that allows them to make up to 99% profit. If there was actual competition, Title II wouldn't be necessary. Right wing stooges have brought the gov't bad bandwagon again. Thankfully for once, the majority of people aren't getting on that sad train of bullshit.
Click to expand...
How are they granted those monopolies? Oh yeah: governments. GOVERNMENTS are the problem.
 
Zale00 said:
Death panels is the true lives system within obamacare. In a nutshell its a failsafe when the system is overloaded, people will be given treatment based off their value to the collective. Government takeover of the internet is via regulation. Now if you want to run a website you will need to get a permit and you must prove to the government its in the public interest. Public interest being whatever those in power want it to be.

Not that hard to follow is it?
Click to expand...

And wasn't it completely debunked to the point where even the republicans short of Rush, Palin, and Newt admitted it was false?
 
What I worry about is whether these new rules can prevent the ISPs from just having their services in-network and everyone else on an over saturated external link. Will net neutrality force them to offer their own services through that same external link and fight for bandwidth? It will be interesting to see what loopholes they come up with.
 
Zale00 said:
Sorry my bad its called the complete lives system.
Click to expand...

If you don't like the half dozen fact checks done by Politifact, try this one instead:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/deadly-doctor/

This is the root of the "death panel" nonsense. It was never part of the law. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here is the most pertinent part:

"H.R. 3200: Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer."

I'd like to apologize for taking this thread a little off track, but the misinformation about the ACA and net neutrality run in similar veins. Just because "government" is attached to it doesn't necessarily make it bad or good. An awful lot of us are frustrated by the cartel-like arrangement of the ISPs. When the free market doesn't self regulate, and sometimes it doesn't (i.e. the meat packing industry in the early 20th century), governments need to step in.

As much as I don't trust Tom Wheeler, I think it was very astute for him to say “This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.” Should we abolish the first amendment because the market will self correct and consumers will avoid companies that attempt to stifle free speech?
 
Burning_Monk said:
That would have drastic effects on every layer of the economy. Cheap fuel and cheap food is what helps propel prosperity.
Click to expand...
That's sort of a can of worms in itself. The way we're living life propped up on oil as much as we are isn't sustainable. We should be doing everything we can to reduce usage of it, by making it cheaper, yes, it does help prosperity in the short term, but makes having to scale down from it even uglier in the long term.
 
I think I'm pretty happy about this.

If my rates go up I'm going to be mad though and claim I knew this was a bad idea from the start.
 
It sure is amazing how many Rush/Fox News heads are in attendance. You guys really need to get your information else where or try thinking for yourselves for a change.

Especially you morons who keep misquoting Pelosi (who is awful enough without misquoting)...that's the price you pay when you let a "news" network do your thinking for you.
 
It's truly fascinating to observe this fringe minority of people outspoken against net neutrality. I wish I could learn more about them, what shapes their thought processes, where they come from, what news sources they subscribe to, etc. Although I cant say I am surprised that they also subscribe to other conspiracies like ACA death panels. It's sort of like how 9/11 truthers also just so happen to be moon hoaxers and JFK conspiritards. Is this a coincidence? I think not. They simply represent that broken portion of society, like a skin defect. Nothing is perfect, and there will always be a few loose screws rolling about.
 
McFry said:
It's truly fascinating to observe this fringe minority of people outspoken against net neutrality. I wish I could learn more about them, what shapes their thought processes, where they come from, what news sources they subscribe to, etc. Although I cant say I am surprised that they also subscribe to other conspiracies like ACA death panels. It's sort of like how 9/11 truthers also just so happen to be moon hoaxers and JFK conspiritards. Is this a coincidence? I think not. They simply represent that broken portion of society, like a skin defect. Nothing is perfect, and there will always be a few loose screws rolling about.
Click to expand...

You had me until the "truther" rant. I guess you think that people are never supposed to question anything and simply take what we are told at face value? It is very sad how people who critically think are lumped in with "moon hoaxers".
 
mullet said:
Hows that good ole Ethanol subsides working out? I think all food prices are a lot more now because of it. Not to mention it cost more to make Ethanol then gas. Let the market decide what the price is.
Click to expand...


And how is that market pricing going to work when other countries keep using subsidies and undercut US business?

mullet said:
Nope and have refused to appear in front of Congress. I am looking for the source but I have heard that google has read it and made small changes.

Tom Wheeler tweaks net neutrality plan after Google push
Click to expand...

It would be extremely abnormal for a federal agency to have to report to Congress for rulemaking. Rulemaking is the backbone of federal agency work.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
How are they granted those monopolies? Oh yeah: governments. GOVERNMENTS are the problem.
Click to expand...

Government...of course. :rolleyes:

If it wasn't for the corrupt corporate greedy scum sucking leaches bilking customers we wouldn't be having this entertaining discussion.
 
ICOM said:
Government...of course. :rolleyes:

If it wasn't for the corrupt corporate greedy scum sucking leaches bilking customers we wouldn't be having this entertaining discussion.
Click to expand...

Yeah you should purge your life from all of the products the "corrupt corporate greedy scum sucking leaches" provide you. It's like all of the 99%ers bitching about corporate greed as they text there hippy friends on the Iphones.
 
kydsid said:
And how is that market pricing going to work when other countries keep using subsidies and undercut US business?
Click to expand...

I don't know you will have to ask Bill Clinton how he feels about it now.
 
mullet said:
Yeah you should purge your life from all of the products the "corrupt corporate greedy scum sucking leaches" provide you. It's like all of the 99%ers bitching about corporate greed as they text there hippy friends on the Iphones.
Click to expand...
It's quite funny to praise companies and blame government as if the companies are completely innocent in such ventures. Two sides to the same coin.
 
Semantics said:
It's quite funny to praise companies and blame government as if the companies are completely innocent in such ventures. Two sides to the same coin.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I agree with you but people that think the government is going to make everything better because you are pissed at corporate America for inflated prices. Yes the industry needs to be watched for unlawful practices but do you really want folks that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground regulating it? Then on top of it corporate lobbyist help writing the regulations? The corruption is so thick you can cut it with a chain saw.
 
mullet said:
Again thanks for proving my point that the government should never get involved. All subsidies of all kind should end. Either your company has a good business model or it doesn't.

Solar Trust of America: FAIL! - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012

Bright Source: FAIL! - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Bright Source lost billions of dollars but is getting more money to keep trying. Can you say, “This isn’t working Mr. President?”

Solyndra: FAIL! - Obama gave $500,000,000 (that’s a HALF BILLION!) in taxpayer money to Solyndra who shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 after billions in losses due to failure to make a solar product that works! Barack Obama was not vetted before being elected President and neither was Solyndra before Mr. Obama threw that taxpayer money down the drain of unproven technology.

LSP Energy: FAIL! - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012


Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL! – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy

Abound Solar: FAIL! - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama then announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy. Many of these failed corporations, such as Abound, donated MILLIONS and continue to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign. Can you say, “Democrat Slush Fund”? Yes this is illegal. But Democrats are being protected from being prosecuted, for now.

SunPower: FAIL! - SunPower stopped producing solar cells in 2011 at near bankruptcy then restructured with the help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL, Inc. who owns 60% stake in SunPower. Irony? The company is still struggling.

Beacon Power: FAIL! – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy protection in October, 2011 just a year after Obama approved a $43 million Government loan guarantee. They remain barely in business, still struggling to make energy that makes sense or that works at all.

Ecotality: FAIL! - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money and remains on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from President Obama, who wants to do some more of this kind of Democrat Slush Fund Guarantees after he is elected to a 2nd term.

A123 Solar: FAIL! - A123 Solar received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees even after the Solyndra bankruptcy and is getting another $500M from Obama after a loss of $400M.

UniSolar: FAIL! - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20, 2012 after laying off hundreds of workers. UniSolar received even more Obama money after showing now progress, no profits and is still failing… yet they still remain in business with Obama’s help.

Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy in June , 2012 wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” money and received abatement on taxes owed and and several tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK.

Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama and filed bankruptcy in late 2011. Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March, 2011 cut more than 1800 jobs. Evergreen’s $450 million factory, turned out to be a colossal “waste” of taxpayer money.

Ener1: FAIL! Ener1 Inc. received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant from President Obama to make electric-car batteries but filed for bankruptcy protection January 2012 after defaulting on bond debt.
Click to expand...

If the world were a level playing field I would agree with you.

That being said, the reason most of these failed was because of an intentional and concentrated effort by the Chinese government to subsidize their green energy markets such that all international competition goes out of business and they can corner the market and raise prices, and this far they are succeeded.

This leaves us in a situation with no good options.

We can:
1.) Race China to the bottom and try to out subsidize them
2.) Convince the world to boycott China
3.) Do some.combination of our own ligjter subsidies and pursuing Chinese subsidized products through import bans and the likes.

Either way, none of these options are good.
 
mullet said:
You are correct. I agree with you but people that think the government is going to make everything better because you are pissed at corporate America for inflated prices. Yes the industry needs to be watched for unlawful practices but do you really want folks that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground regulating it? Then on top of it corporate lobbyist help writing the regulations? The corruption is so thick you can cut it with a chain saw.
Click to expand...
Government would be the regulating body to do it corruption be damned although a true cynic would just say fuck the whole thing. After all who fights government? If government is in the pocket of big industry remove big industry from their pocket else you're never going to win. Reducing government doesn't really reduce the hold big industry has over a sector or cleans up unfair practices. A well functioning capitalist economy is one that is regulated to promote competition, and unregulated economy just functions the same as a corrupt one.
 
TangledThorns said:
Those that work for an ISP understand this is bad. All the rest that are ignorant of how the Internet works think this is a good idea. Either way, expect packet-loss and latency in the short term and jacked up prices in the long-term.
Click to expand...

When you got that company-wide email at work on this topic was the first question that popped into your head "Why is my employer trying to influence the way I feel about this?". If not, you should be questioning yourself.
 
Zale00 said:
You know what you are right. We as human beings are forced to remain in the same place and are unable to move and make decisions to get what we want. So if I'm at a certain location. IT IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO GET WHAT KIND OF CABLE/INTERNET I WANT AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

Oh wait I have the freedom to relocate or make adjustments to my life? Meh screw it thats too hard, Uncle Sam come take care of me!!
Click to expand...

This might be the dumbest, most asinine thing anyone has ever posted trying to back their foolish ideology. I mean it makes total sense that I will quit my 150k/year job, relocate my growing family, attempt to sell my house, find a new house, and look for a new career so that I have more options for ISPs. WTF are you an 18 year old kid living in your mom's basement with Fox News running 24/7? Go to reddit or 4chan or whatever forum your intelligence level is more equipped for.

I wasn't going to post due to the nature of this thread, but for christ's sake. How fucking moronic can some of these people be??
 
Reus said:
You had me until the "truther" rant. I guess you think that people are never supposed to question anything and simply take what we are told at face value? It is very sad how people who critically think are lumped in with "moon hoaxers".
Click to expand...

Go ahead and question it, and then listen to those with more intelligence and experience in the matter answer it. My point was that people who believe in things like conspiracies tend to believe in all conspiracies, just like people who believe neutrality is a negative also stereotypically believe in numerous other anti-Obama garbage. Why is it so easy to predict what their arguments are going to be on totally unrelated subjects? Because they all share a defining characteristic; idiocy.
 
Just would like to point out, nobody knows what this regulation does yet, it wont be released for 30 days. I'm getting really tired of things being done in secret
 
Given trends this won't be good for the consumer in the end. But if it is, it will be a nice surprise
 
Romale23 said:
Just would like to point out, nobody knows what this regulation does yet, it wont be released for 30 days. I'm getting really tired of things being done in secret
Click to expand...

It's not in secret. It's normal rulemaking. The design of the FCC and its leadership being formed of a board that is required by another federal law to disclose meetings means the public was aware, only in a slightly different manner than other agencies when they are creating, proposing and publishing a new rule.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
And how much kool aid do you have to drink to think that 3 lines, from a 317 page regulation, paints to true impact of it?
Click to expand...

Regardless of the impact of any regulation, the major carriers want NOTHING to do with what's in those three lines and they're never going be honest about it because opposing directly what's in those 3 lines is a fools errand.

But the key issue here is the last one, fast lanes. The major ISPs clearly want the ability to charge for prioritization. I'm not opposed to that idea out of hand but it clearly gives ISPs a lot of power. They can go to any service provider like Netflix and put them over a barrel, cough up the cash or else watch you service go to shit. And there's nothing theoretical about this because it's already happened.

I'd rather there be some imperfect regulation that tries to prevent this than not unless opponents can clearly show the benefits generally to customers and service providers reliant on the Internet of speed lanes, beyond the tired rhetoric of "guvmint sux".
 
Gavv said:
Given trends this won't be good for the consumer in the end. But if it is, it will be a nice surprise
Click to expand...

How are speed lanes good for consumers? If the ISPs want to win this they are going to have to explain this.
 
Gavv said:
Given trends this won't be good for the consumer in the end. But if it is, it will be a nice surprise
Click to expand...

How is it bad for the consumer that an ISP like Comcast won't be able to let netflix (or other competing services) intentionally congest. As a customer you pay them for INTERnet service at a certain speed. "Inter" in the service refers to a connection between networks... ie. between comcast and the outside world. If they are intentionally letting those links congest, then they are intentionally not providing the service you as a customer are paying for. IE. Fraud.
 
canna said:
How is it bad for the consumer that an ISP like Comcast won't be able to let netflix (or other competing services) intentionally congest. As a customer you pay them for INTERnet service at a certain speed. "Inter" in the service refers to a connection between networks... ie. between comcast and the outside world. If they are intentionally letting those links congest, then they are intentionally not providing the service you as a customer are paying for. IE. Fraud.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the mafioso type tactics of telling netflix to pay them or maybe something happens to their shipment to their customers.

Doesn't that violate the RICO act?
 
trynberg said:
It sure is amazing how many Rush/Fox News heads are in attendance. You guys really need to get your information else where or try thinking for yourselves for a change.

Especially you morons who keep misquoting Pelosi (who is awful enough without misquoting)...that's the price you pay when you let a "news" network do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...

Without name calling, no one miss quoted Pelosi, it was the interpretation of what she meant that is in question.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbcs-gregory-confronts-pelosi-with-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it-clip/

I stand by what I said there: when people see what’s in the bill, they will like it, and they will,” Pelosi said. “It took a great deal for us to pass the bill. I said, if we go up to the gate and the gate is locked, we’ll unlock the gate. If we can’t do that we’ll climb the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. We had to pass the test of the courts, and we did.”
Click to expand...

Many polls showed that tax payers wanted health care to be changed, but not behind closed doors. If the public knew in advance, about the rise in cost, and the tax penalties for not having insurance, and all the added regulations every month, just to name a few issues, there would have been more opposition. The opposition at the time, just wanted the government to slow down, and put all the options on the table, but the ACA was rushed across the finish line.

The problem is, BO ran his campaign on transparency, and passing a bill like the ACA that is so huge and broad reaching without full disclosure to the public, is not really transparent. Instead of name calling a bickering back and forth about who said what and what they meant. Maybe we should all focus on the fact that the government is now going to decide what is fair when it come to data on the internet. All speculation aside, they have not given full disclosure on how they intend to regulating the internet. This ruling is a win for Crony capitalism, not the little guy. As i have said, "I hope im wrong" and 5 years from now, people can bash me on this site and many others, with "See, i told you so"... I really hope that day comes, but if im right, ....this site, and many other sites wont exist, because of taxation and regulation. So i wont even be able to say, "I told you so" Again, i honestly hope that the Government will regulate the internet without creating an over regulated mess with rising cost that stifles innovation, and gives favoritism to large companies with huge lobbing power, but as we have seen in governments current and past administrations, that is not the case.
 
cptnjarhead said:
All speculation aside, they have not given full disclosure on how they intend to regulating the internet. This ruling is a win for Crony capitalism, not the little guy.
Click to expand...
The thing is though, NOT doing this and keeping the status quo would have been a BIGGER win for crony capitalism. Like you said, lack of full disclosure is bad, but the situation is such a mess now that the little guy really only stands to benefit, even if it's a coincidence.
 
frelled said:
What a joke. The ISP's are the problem. They hold a monopoly that allows them to make up to 99% profit. If there was actual competition, Title II wouldn't be necessary. Right wing stooges have brought the gov't bad bandwagon again. Thankfully for once, the majority of people aren't getting on that sad train of bullshit.
Click to expand...

The ISPs have not created the monopolies, government has. Never forget the cable industry was a regulated monopoly, and since that regulation has ended the price increase every year has dropped from what it was when it was a monopoly. The barrier to entry is government. Here is a nice article from wired which is defently a left leaning publication: http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

I also agree with the analysis that google has enough money to change the picture. Everywhere google has deployed, paid off the politicians to get access, internet rates have dropped dramatically. Please note that the only time the monopolies exist currently is when government in collusion with business instead of being impartial. That is the root of the reason the right is so upset by net neutrality, its not that in theory if you stuck to its roots: that you can't charge up stream, that everyone has access to polls. Thats not the issue. The issue is the belief that government is corrupt and regardless of which side controls it, we will suffer. In Taxes, In what we can and can't do, in base price increases to meet regulatory demands. All the other stuff is fluff arguments trying to take away from that issue. The funny thing is verizon is such an arrogant piece of shit company that they pretty much single handedly guaranteed this passed.

But do you know why i'm worried? 1. republicans dropped all opposition to it suddenly and while the republican base isn't beholden to companies, just like the establishment left politicians , the establishment right politicians are. . 2. nobody knows what the regulation actually says, thats being kept secret for 30 days. 3. i know taxes on it are coming. Which is going to raise rates which is really why the whole net neutrality came about isn't it? shitty service and high prices?

Just another example: where i live there are 3 legal beer distributors. A government enforced monopoly. people try to get it changed, but the largest distributor happens to donate 20k to the guy who makes the decision. I literally am going to the next meeting he is at and going to ask him if i pay him 21k will he remove the monopoly? pretty sure i can fundraise that.
 
Romale23 said:
Please note that the only time the monopolies exist currently is when government in collusion with business instead of being impartial.
Click to expand...

When was Microsoft in collusion with government that allowed Windows to become a monopoly? Regardless this doesn't really pertain to the matter at hand. How do fast lanes benefit consumers?
 
Romale23 said:
The ISPs have not created the monopolies, government has. Never forget the cable industry was a regulated monopoly, and since that regulation has ended the price increase every year has dropped from what it was when it was a monopoly. The barrier to entry is government. Here is a nice article from wired which is defently a left leaning publication: http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-nee...-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

I also agree with the analysis that google has enough money to change the picture. Everywhere google has deployed, paid off the politicians to get access, internet rates have dropped dramatically. Please note that the only time the monopolies exist currently is when government in collusion with business instead of being impartial. That is the root of the reason the right is so upset by net neutrality, its not that in theory if you stuck to its roots: that you can't charge up stream, that everyone has access to polls. Thats not the issue. The issue is the belief that government is corrupt and regardless of which side controls it, we will suffer. In Taxes, In what we can and can't do, in base price increases to meet regulatory demands. All the other stuff is fluff arguments trying to take away from that issue. The funny thing is verizon is such an arrogant piece of shit company that they pretty much single handedly guaranteed this passed.

But do you know why i'm worried? 1. republicans dropped all opposition to it suddenly and while the republican base isn't beholden to companies, just like the establishment left politicians , the establishment right politicians are. . 2. nobody knows what the regulation actually says, thats being kept secret for 30 days. 3. i know taxes on it are coming. Which is going to raise rates which is really why the whole net neutrality came about isn't it? shitty service and high prices?

Just another example: where i live there are 3 legal beer distributors. A government enforced monopoly. people try to get it changed, but the largest distributor happens to donate 20k to the guy who makes the decision. I literally am going to the next meeting he is at and going to ask him if i pay him 21k will he remove the monopoly? pretty sure i can fundraise that.
Click to expand...

Holy crap what a great post.

They used three lines, the three lines that everyone should be on board with. Except that they attached 317 of bureaucratic bullshit that we can't even read yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top