Forbes is small...
Be careful now. With all that yawning you may fall asleep and write something cogent by mistake.
Or you might not be a one trick pony. Oh wait... never mind- I must have been sleeping.
Zing! Pyrrhic victories, don't leave the voting booth without them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...o-the-wrong-problem/
This article has an interesting point of view.
Comparing soup can placement to worldwide communications networks. I can totally see the correlation.
Music City posted:So let me get this straight asshole...
Exactly. Our sphincters twist and turn and cause all kinds of problems
#anusnuetrality
Accidentally caught Rush Limpballs for a minute today. Of course heâs against it. If Obama is for it it must be bad
Is Net Neutrality a Donkey/Elephant thing?
or can it be a Right vs. Wrong issue?
or can it be a What's best for people versus what's best for Capitalism?
It shouldn't be a partisan issue at all. The point of this whole issue is over 80% of the populace including 73% of registered Republicans want Net Neutrality. The reason why it is so revolting is Ajit Pai, the newly appointed head of the FCC doesn't care and won't listen to the 80%. The other problem is Congress can remove Ajit Pai due to something exactly like this but like Pai, have chosen to ignore 80% of the populace.
And as I posted earlier, it's even more hilarious that outlets like Breitbart are just blindly supporting the repeal because "liburuls" even though it is Net Neutrality that allows them to exist in the first place.
So leave all partisanship aside and tell me how this isn't a total slap in the face of the American public?
Of course, there are several other issues, which I've pointed out. Specifically, all of American telecom, or the actual data pipelines, is held by a small number of mega companies like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T (being the largest). So one of the unspoken issues about Net Neutrality under Title 2 is it opens ISP's to anti-trust laws. And now with the possible upcoming AT&T / Time Warner merger there will be even fewer companies controlling those pipelines. They are essentially already monopolies. Monopolies are bad. I think that's pretty clear when it comes to free markets (which are all but mythology in the upper echelons).
The other issues that are widely cited is the internet would become like cable packages (like in Portugal, which is a common example) and ISPs would have the ability to throttle the services they don't like or own. They get to pick the winners, usually based on their stake. Because they get to pick winners and losers, any small innovative competition will be inhibited and small to medium business in general will suffer or go under. It's that simple.
The status of Title 2 is ISPs are listed as public utilities like the old Bell system and are subject to anti-trust just like the break up of the old Bell system. Getting rid of Net Neutrality also means that ISPs will be in charge of content and regulation so many bloviate about.
Title 2 gives everyone equal footing and access on the internet and 80% of the population wants it. It's that simple.
The only entities who benefit from this are the mega telecom companies.
It should also be noted that Tom Wheeler chose to "forbear" over 400 regulations when ISPs where classified as Title 2. As I also previously stated, Tom Wheeler is a venture capitalist and long time cable and wireless lobbyists.
In late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that the FCC under Wheeler would consider announcing rules that would violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for companies to pay ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) to provide faster "lanes" for delivering their content to Internet users.[18] These plans received substantial backlash from activists, the mainstream press, and some other FCC commissioners.[19][20] In May 2014, over 100 Internet companies â including Google, Microsoft, eBay, and Facebook â signed a letter to Wheeler voicing their disagreement with his plans, saying they represented a "grave threat to the Internet".[21] As of May 15, 2014, the "Internet fast lane" rules passed with a 3â2 vote. They were then open to public discussion that ended July 2014
And yet, he still listened to the majority unlike Ajit Pai and the Republican Congress.
I appreciate the information, Henry. Agree. It should NOT be a partisan issue. It should be what is best for free speech and everyday Americans and not the corporate bottom line.
Tom Wheeler on the current Net Neutrality issue and what lead to net Neutrality.
FC: Pai likes to say that ISP spending on infrastructure has been chilled by the Open Internet order. Is that a true assessment of whatâs happened?
TW: First of all, that assertion is balderdash. That so-called study is highly suspect because it was done by somebody who has never liked the open internet rules, has always taken the position of the ISPs, and during my tenure was exposed for having selectively chosen information to make that same point.
So letâs go to what the ISPs tell their financial regulator. You know thereâs an important thing that the ISPs have a lobbying message at the FCC and the Congress that is designed to accomplish their goals of giving them free rein. But then over at the SEC they are under the penalty of law required to tell the truth. How does what they say in their financial filings differ from what they say at the FCC? Well, in their financial filings they say they are spending a constant amountâthey say they are spending about 15% of revenue on infrastructure investment. Two days ago, Comcast had their quarterly report and reaffirmed they are spending 15% of revenue on building infrastructure.
. . . . .
TW: Well I guess the Trump FCC has decided to put on blinders. So letâs go back to 2005 when Comcast announced that it wasnât going to allow peer-to-peer video over its network because it interfered with some of the services they wanted to make profits off of. The FCC, which by the way was a Republican FCC at that point, said âNoâ and sanctioned them. Comcast took [the FCC] to court and the court said âOh no, you canât take that action against Comcast unless you make Comcast a common carrier.â
That, of course, is at the root of the whole Title II issue. And it had been going on for a dozen years by the time it landed on my desk.
But letâs keep going. AT&T and Verizon refused to carry Google Wallet because they were developing their own mobile payments platform. Verizon refused to allow tethering apps because they wanted to have their own tethering apps that they could charge you $20 a month for.
When Verizon sued the FCC to overturn the [Chairman Julius] Genachowski [2010] open internet rules, the Verizon lawyer said in open court âI am authorized by my client to say yes, we do intend to have fast lanes and slow lanes and the fact that this rule eliminates that hurts my clientâs ability to deliver services.â
These corporations are constantly trying to milk every marketing scheme, scam etc. whatever they can manufacture for more money. The greed factor is at an all-time high.
Brainwashed Boris posted:These corporations are constantly trying to milk every marketing scheme, scam etc. whatever they can manufacture for more money. The greed factor is at an all-time high.
Agree on the greed factor, Boris. I think the greed factor started building during Reagan's term. His "trickle down" economics that gave tax cuts, etc., to corporations reinforced greed and short-term thinking. Now that the great businessman (*hack, hack*) is in office, the greediness is once again on full and brutal display in the form of tax cuts, reduced/rescinded regulations, the foxes running the hen houses in government agencies to dismantle any oversight, etc.
The stifling of free speech can begin to be accomplished by the end of net neutrality, and that is one of the things that scares me the most. The flow of information in the hands of just a few is a dream for those who want to control the message. Net neutrality at least gives people a chance to determine what they want to view/learn about/read without influence. This administration will probably one day say when it's influencing those couple of companies to shut down sites or slow the flow "it's to prevent fake news and foreign countries influencing voters."
indeed, fandame that is the plan. what would scavengers do if scavengers were the only thing left? pick each others bones, sure as rain.
gordon gecko... when I saw the movie I knew it was the truth. I knew it was already on but I knew it would be seen as inspirational by far too many... people, I think I can call greedy self-serving bastards that.
we, as a nation, are beyond sick. yet all the people I associate with any given week sure are nice folks I would trust my dog with. can not say that about anybody that represents me in a legislative body.
I hope Ajit Pai falls down an abandoned elevator shaft which has its bottom 2 floors filled with Ebola filled needles.
Seems to be there are far too many Fred C. Dobbses in America today, and not enough Curtins or Howards. (Treasure of Sierra Madre reference)
Bahhhdges?
I show that movie as part of an essay assignment to my sophomores every year. Almost none have seen it, but some have later told me they bought it on their own. It tends to play better to males, I think.
Music City posted:*yawn*
You presented no facts. Thatâs because in the debate on net neutrality there are no facts- just fear. Fear of what some company COULD do, but not taking into consideration other factors like market fluidity and innovation that should assuage the fears of monopolies or content control.
Here's some facts for you.
Madison River Communications block users from using VoIP
Comcast blocks users from using file sharing
AT&T blocks Skype on iPhone
AT&T blocks Google Voice for iPhone
Windstream hijacks users search queries on Google tool bar to their own search engine
Verizon (who?) blocks pro choice text messaging
MetroPCS tries blocking streaming video from everything but YouTube
A bunch of ISPs work with Paxfire to hijack Bing and Yahoo search requests to skip over those sites referrals so the ISPs can get referral fees.
AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon (Verizon? hmmm) block Google Wallet because they all are working on a competing mobile pay system.
Verizon (again? weird) blocks tethering apps from users
AT&T plans to block FaceTime unless you pay more
Verizon (KNOW ANYONE WHO WORKED AT VERIZON????) states in court that they would slow access from content providers that don't pay Verizon as well.
I could go on. This isn't "fear". This isn't something that paranoids will have you belive "could" happen. These are things that have happened. Repeatedly. Including multiple time offender (of just those I listed) Verizon, where your hero Ajit Pai worked. And the repeal of Net Neutrality just made that easier than ever to now get away with even more of things they have already tried.
Never mind that you'll be just as ****ed by your provider as everyone else, the important thing is you can say your team won and overturned something the black guy did! Yay!
The fact you think that somehow those lobbying hardest for the overturning of this aren't immediately gonna take full advantage of it is simply sad and hilarious.
It's sad because, unlike you, I don't want those that aren't on my "team" to suffer. I want everyone to have open access to all content on the internet. It's sad you care more about corporate profits of Verizon (hint Verizon doesn't give a flying **** about you) than your neighbors access to content.
But, I also find it hilarious when people like you regurgitate what your corporate masters tell you to because you think somehow they will spare you in the end. Newsflash - you're just as ****ed as everyone when AT&T decides to block access to Netflix because they view Netflix as a competitor to DirecTV. But, no biggie if you get screwed over as long as it hurts libtards.
Music City posted:The one entity we should be afraid of when it comes to control of content, and abuse of power? That would the government you moron.
Can you please detail, with specifics, how the enactment of Net Neutrality by the black guy and BIG BAD GUBMINT has hurt consumers or limited the access to content one can get on the Internet today?
Thanks in advance.
*yawn* indeed
LOVE people who bring in actual facts.
NY AG Schneiderman and other AGs around the country are taking the FCC to court over their vote which destroys Net Neutrality. The FCC is supposed to listen to citizens' comments. The comments part of the debate here was hacked by someone who submitted over 2 million anti Net Neutrality comments using stolen IDs. Some comments recently submitted were from people who have been dead for years. Then, there is the issue of the 1/2 million comments coming from Russian email accounts. Schneiderman and others tried to get the FCC to delay their vote until the 2 million comments made by someone using identity theft and the 1/2 million emails from Russian email accounts could be fully investigated. Schneiderman went on to say that the law says the FCC cannot make drastic changes, such as eliminating Net Neutrality, without citizen approval. The vast majority of citizens want Net Neutrality to remain in place. This is not a done deal, by any means.
It's a money grab, nothing more, nothing less. ISP providers have been waiting for this opportunity to soak their customers or push (pander) to certain political interests.
These companies know they are losing billions on traditional cable packaging options so now they will just switch gears and create and sell internet plan services because they know we have to feed the monkey.
Two words that have lost all meaning in this country, "hero" and "freedom".
There is a push to make the Senate act but good luck with that. There's as many schills on the left as there is on the right.
Call or write on your own. Form letters don't have the impact direct contact does. Be relatively informed on what you're contacting your reps about as well including your stance and why you hold such stance. Reps get scared when they start hearing from people and not form submissions.
Here is a site, which will give you info about your reps.
There is a form letter here but more importantly there is abundant information about your representatives and who they support as well as contact info.
Because the laws the FCC voted to repeal only became law in 2015, this is a fairly easy discussion. Ask yourself one question: Was anything markedly different about your internet usage, availability, and pricing prior to 2015? For me the answer is no.
In the end, this really isn't that big of a deal and is nothing more than political gamesmanship, partisanship, and talking points for votes.
Typically, most would not think 2-3 years is much.
AMZN has gone from 300 to 1200 in that time
FB has more than doubled
GOOGL, more than doubled
The monetization of the Internet is growing exponentially. Net neutrality is something to be concerned about.
NumberThree posted:Was anything markedly different about your internet usage, availability, and pricing prior to 2015? For me the answer is no.
I hadn't thought about it this way. My answer would be yes, yes and yes. My provider recently, without asking, requested to double my speed and give me a wireless modem with 3 times the range for no additional cost. This significantly helps with 2 children streaming youtube and netflix. Days later I got notices from Mediacom and DISH trying to get me to switch.
Yeah, except now you'll get the privilege to pay extra for that. 
Exactly. Everything you do online has grown exponentially since 2015. Streaming, gaming, video chatting, etc. The more dependent the public gets on internet service the easier it gets to charge them more for x, y, z when that becomes possible. It's just another quality of life issue that depends on how much you can pay.
NumberThree posted:Ask yourself one question: Was anything markedly different about your internet usage, availability, and pricing prior to 2015? For me the answer is no.
Here's some markedly different things prior to 2015.
Comcast tried preventing me from using file sharing programs
AT&T wanted me to buy a more expensive plan simply to use Apple's FaceTime.
Verizon wouldn't let me use a freely available tethering app
(Do I really need to retype all the examples of Telcos attempting to screw over consumers here?)
In the end, this really isn't that big of a deal and is nothing more than political gamesmanship, partisanship, and talking points for votes.
Just because you want to take a very complex subject and turn it into a simple issue with a pithy folksy bumper sticker response, doesn't mean it's not a big deal.
Could this be no big deal? I guess. I can suspend disbelief for movies, so maybe I could suspend disbelief enough so that the idea that the same ISPs that repeatedly tried ****ing over consumers before 2015 and since then have spent over a billion dollars lobbying for its repeal would not immediately resort to acting like they previously did. Sure? Maybe Jennifer Connelly wants to make sweet sweet love to me nightly. Who knows, right?
Could it be the end of the world? Almost certainly not. I guess maybe an ISP that is a monopoly in certain geographic areas could be so bold as to introduce something as awful as "our shiitty ass search engine free, Google is $1/search" I mean that sounds completely insane, but even I don't think telcos are that dumb or evil. Does Paul Ryan own a telco?
Those two extremes aside, I think you're being very naive if you don't think this will impact things. It's not paranoia to think an example like "Netflix has to pay AT&T in order to not be slowed on their network," could happen. Or Verizon decides that Netflix doesn't count against your monthly cap, but YouTube, Hulu, and HBO does. Prices of access and content will go up almost certainly. Tiering of "lanes' almost certainly will happen a la cable television.
I think the overlooked issue here is the impact to small business or developers of content. Say a small software company comes out with a new app that is in an area that Verizon wants to eventually go, but since Verizon is late to market they simply decide to disable or block my friends software app on all Verizon networks unless they pay Verizon huge fees, or sell out to them for pennies on the dollar. Almost no one would know, because it's not taking away something you already have, but its preventing an innovation you might have seen.
Look, I don't think this is necessarily the apocalypse. But, anyone that thinks that the ISPs that would spend 1B to lobby against this, wouldn't resort right back to things like the above examples is being willfully ignorant. These massive companies, that are basically monopolies already, now have carte blanche to act even more monopolistic. And when is the last time a person or a company in that position didn't take advantage of that power? Especially Murica 2017.
NumberThree posted:Because the laws the FCC voted to repeal only became law in 2015, this is a fairly easy discussion. Ask yourself one question: Was anything markedly different about your internet usage, availability, and pricing prior to 2015? For me the answer is no.
In the end, this really isn't that big of a deal and is nothing more than political gamesmanship, partisanship, and talking points for votes.
Did you read CaPF95's post?
So it isn't a "simple question". It is very much what the FUTURE of the internet will become. As laid out quite distinctly through this thread, particularly CaPF95's post, it is anything but gamesmanship and partisanship. It is flat out setting a precedent of open disdain for the voting public. Let me add, the partisanship inclusion is absolutely laughable when 87% of the population supports Net Neutrality. Truly partisan.
Let's move onto the next point of a government agency fully ignoring, if not willingly sabotaging, the demand of a super majority of the people. I don't know about you but I'm pretty fond of that republic founded on democratic principle spurred by Enlightenment thought.
I suggest you re-evaluate your opinion.
this thread took an unanticipated JC turn
Better than Just 1 of the guys or Quarterback Princess.
Hopefully the FCC has looked into this crap & realizes 87% of the population wants to keep the net neutrality.
R U kidding me? Patty Duke commenting?!?!?
NumberThree posted:Because the laws the FCC voted to repeal only became law in 2015, this is a fairly easy discussion. Ask yourself one question: Was anything markedly different about your internet usage, availability, and pricing prior to 2015? For me the answer is no.
In the end, this really isn't that big of a deal and is nothing more than political gamesmanship, partisanship, and talking points for votes.
Yup, vastly different. So many more things are now online or streaming. I also think those big corporations did not want to, in effect, censor the internet flow before this because they knew the government would step in and not allow it to happen. But there must have been a suspicion that Comcast/ATT/et al. were ready to do just that, so they made the net neutrality rules.
With the current administration, it's open season for corporations to do whatever they want with almost zero consequences. Hence, bye-bye net neutrality, bye-bye wilderness areas, bye-bye scientists, etc., etc., etc.