# RIP Net Neutrality



## begreen (Apr 23, 2014)

Once again the FCC sells out the country
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/net-neutrality-finally-dies-ripe-old-age-of-45
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/23/5644858/dear-fcc-why-do-you-hate-consumers


----------



## ironpony (Apr 24, 2014)

makes me glad I do not care much about cell phones and computers. Yes I belong to about 4 forums but if they were all gone tomorrow my life would not end.
I am not very reliant on technology, do not even have a personal cell phone, my work phone sends and receives calls period. no texts, nothing, gets turned on at 7 off at 4. I control my life.
I know I am the exception to the rule, but honestly how much do you really NEED this stuff?? I would bet 90% of what people do on their cell phones and internet is not NEEDED.
Life is moving to fast and information overload is a real problem. Employers want to contact you 24 -7 via e-mail or text and get an answer. Not this guy.
Sorry it might be off subject, rant over.


----------



## bobdog2o02 (Apr 24, 2014)

begreen said:


> Once again the FCC sells out the country
> http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/net-neutrality-finally-dies-ripe-old-age-of-45
> http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/23/5644858/dear-fcc-why-do-you-hate-consumers




This is the end of small upstarts and innovation that moves tech forward.  Now small companies that rely on speedy internet for new products to become successsfull will need to muster more venture capital for this service, leaving less on the plate for their actual innovative controbutions....Way to go FCC.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 24, 2014)

I'll take the opposite stance.  Second sentence in your mother jones article:

"The Wall Street Journal reports today that the FCC has given up on finding a legal avenue to enforce equal access and will instead propose rules that explicitly allow broadband suppliers to favor companies that pay them for faster pipes."

This is just capitalism at work, doing what it does best:  natural selection.  You might not like the system, but it is our system, and you do have a right to change your citizenship any time.

Rather than complain about it, find a way to use it to your advantage.  There's going to be some economic winners and losers in the fall out.  Invest in the winners, and then you can smile when folks complain about you evil 1%'ers.


----------



## bobdog2o02 (Apr 24, 2014)

> This is just capitalism at work, doing what it does best: natural selection. You might not like the system, but it is our system, and you do have a right to change your citizenship any time.



Wow, i guess i should just move to North Korea.  My arguement to this is that we allready have a system that has capatalistic basis, we pay for upload and download speeds........   The more you pay the faster your stuff will run.  This is something completely different.  It will grade packets of info and give priority to some ex. netfilx.  Why should my neighbor's netflix be more important than my hulu when we both pay for the same internet service........  Silly.   And where will this stop? will health based transfers, ie xrays mri's etc, be blessed with a high priority.  How about security and surveilance based on remote IP tech.  That can be LIFE SAFETY streaming video.........   No easy answer but i think the govt. should step out and let things keep working they way they are.


----------



## BrotherBart (Apr 24, 2014)

Joful said:


> Rather than complain about it, find a way to use it to your advantage. There's going to be some economic winners and losers in the fall out. Invest in the winners, and then you can smile when folks complain about you evil 1%'ers.



I would. But wouldn't be able to contact my broker or monitor my Walmart stock when walmart.com has bought up all of the bandwidth.


----------



## jharkin (Apr 24, 2014)

Its funny -  for a country that claims to support rugged individualism; the ability of the little guy to rise up and become successful from nothing but hard work and merit; and eschewing the class divisions and hereditary rule of old Europe...

... lately we seem to be doing everything possible to _un_level the playing field and make sure the little guy hasn't got a chance to upset the status quo (thinking of the supreme court decisions on campaign funding here too).

Seems that corporations have become our new hereditary kings and queens here in the "new" world.


----------



## begreen (Apr 24, 2014)

This is definitely what is happening and very quickly. SCOTUS is making it a near certainty.


----------



## bobdog2o02 (Apr 24, 2014)

begreen said:


> This is definitely what is happening and very quickly. SCOTUS is making it a near certainty.



Term limits to every elected and NON ELECTED representative and official.   3 years should be long enough to get some productive stuff done without getting comfy.


----------



## BrotherBart (Apr 24, 2014)

The seven Tier 1 network owners are ordering new Gulfstreams today I bet.


----------



## bobdog2o02 (Apr 24, 2014)

Its really sad, nbc/comcast is going to have a huge monopoly, will the antitrust commision realize this though.  They own so much of things that dont seem related but feed off of each other.  It would be like Carnegie, Rockefeller and Weyerhaeuser all in cahoots at the same time.


----------



## begreen (Apr 24, 2014)

The FCC has been complicit selling off airwave neutrality and fairness rules since the Regan administration. Under Powell the FCC removed constraints on media market domination. And these are just a couple of the bullet points on the FCC selling out.

How many of you love the OTA changes from VHF TV to digital? That change has effectively cut off reception to a lot of rural America. And now they want two paths into every home. One slick and speedy and one prone to dropouts and slow service. Not so great for mom and dad trying to manage their healthcare or social security or for millions of others dealing with banking, shopping, research, school papers, etc.. The net has grown because it has been open and equal to all. Now a few corporations want to capitalize on that, not for social gain, but to please their shareholders. The net should be regulated like other public utilities so that they best serve the public and social justice.

Here's a reminder list of FCC sellouts, each one a systematic step toward insuring an oligarchy gets the pie every time.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html


----------



## flyingcow (Apr 24, 2014)

I do not see any good coming out of this. Some may claim that they don't rely on the internet on a daily basis. But the reality is we all are served by the internet in some form or another. it's in this countries interest to keep the internet the way it is.

For the life of me, i do  not know why they are doing this.


----------



## begreen (Apr 24, 2014)

Please take a moment to use the internet to communicate your concerns to your elected reps.


----------



## jharkin (Apr 24, 2014)

begreen said:


> Here's a reminder list of FCC sellouts, each one a systematic step toward insuring an oligarchy gets the pie every time.
> http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html



Wow, didnt realize what a turning point '81 was. Seems its been all downhill since.....


----------



## bobdog2o02 (Apr 24, 2014)

http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home


----------



## Jags (Apr 24, 2014)

Joful said:


> This is just capitalism at work, doing what it does best: natural selection.


In many areas it is more like a monopoly.  There IS only one choice of a provider.

This is bad new for the end user.  The only people that this serves is shareholders.


----------



## Jags (Apr 24, 2014)

"The Commission has also decided for now against reclassifying broadband as a public utility, which would subject ISPs to much greater regulation. However, the Commission has left the reclassification option on the table at present."

This appears to be the only silver bullet left.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 24, 2014)

Jags said:


> This is bad new for the end user.  The only people that this serves is shareholders.


I don't know any shareholders who aren't users.  

Bottom line, this debate has been going for more years than I can remember, and we all knew this was coming.  Rather than complain about who the winners and losers will be, since so many here seem to think they know, I hope some of you steered your investments / retirement accordingly.


----------



## begreen (Apr 24, 2014)

So profit off of a bad decision rather than take the long view and push for the greater good? Sounds like a sellout.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 24, 2014)

begreen said:


> So profit off of a bad decision rather than take the long view and push for the greater good? Sounds like a sellout.


I wouldn't say that exactly.  Who's greater good?  Yours?  Aren't these evil shareholders good people too?  Many are just working chums, investing their retirement, hoping it pays off someday...

It's not that I don't admire your passion for these things, begreen.  It's just that I'd rather look for the positive / benefit / profit in these things, than frustrate myself fighting losing battles.


----------



## Grisu (Apr 24, 2014)

Joful said:


> I wouldn't say that exactly.  Who's greater good?  Yours?  Aren't these evil shareholders good people too?  Many are just working chums, investing their retirement, hoping it pays off someday...
> 
> It's not that I don't admire your passion for these things, begreen.  It's just that I'd rather look for the positive / benefit / profit in these things, than frustrate myself fighting losing battles.



So your strategy is to win the battles but lose the war?


----------



## Grisu (Apr 24, 2014)

Joful said:


> I don't know any shareholders who aren't users.
> 
> Bottom line, this debate has been going for more years than I can remember, and we all knew this was coming.  Rather than complain about who the winners and losers will be, since so many here seem to think they know, I hope some of you steered your investments / retirement accordingly.



So transferring more income and savings from the little guy to the rich or who do you think pays for profits and capital gains and who ends up with them?


----------



## hossthehermit (Apr 25, 2014)

Guess I stumbled into the Ash Can ............


----------



## Ashful (Apr 25, 2014)

Grisu said:


> So your strategy is to win the battles but lose the war?


You're not going to win the "war."  No sense in losing every battle along the way, as well.


----------



## BrotherBart (Apr 25, 2014)

What is irritating me is that here we are being pressured/forced to move from Verizon wireline to their FIOS fiber net. So our phone service become unregulated VOIP. My copper phone service and DSL are just fine thank you very much. Price increases have to be approved by the state corporation commission. The minute I am on their fiber net I am wide open to what ever they want to charge for it. 

Oh, and they want me to pay an activation fee and equipment fee for them cutting off my copper service, to save them money, and doubling my phone and Internet bill.


----------



## Ashful (Apr 25, 2014)

I agree with you, Bro... but I think that's a separate issue from the one at hand.  The net neutrality issue is about allowing large corporations to pay for preferred packet handling, something that already happens at the protocol level (eg. streaming packets preferred over email), but now they're allowing it to happen on a per-customer basis (eg. Google can pay to have their traffic preferred over Yahoo).  It's about ensuring some providers have faster perceived performance, than their competition.


----------



## BEConklin (Apr 26, 2014)

I'd say it's about monopolies......

I'd also say it's not about _allowing_ companies to pay for preferred access as much as it's about allowing companies to _charge more_ for preferred access. It seems to me there's nothing now to stop these corporations: they can own both the content and the infrastructure needed to deliver that content to the consumer - AND they can restrict their competitor's access to that infrastructure. 

To me - that's a perfect setup for a monopoly - pure and simple. 

Not long ago, we used to frown on them in this country - and for damned good reasons I'd say.


----------



## DBNH22 (Apr 26, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> What is irritating me is that here we are being pressured/forced to move from Verizon wireline to their FIOS fiber net. So our phone service become unregulated VOIP. My copper phone service and DSL are just fine thank you very much. Price increases have to be approved by the state corporation commission. The minute I am on their fiber net I am wide open to what ever they want to charge for it.
> 
> Oh, and they want me to pay an activation fee and equipment fee for them cutting off my copper service, to save them money, and doubling my phone and Internet bill.




That's kind of like how the cell carriers are not selling basic phones anymore that you can get without a data plan.  Everything now is a smartphone that costs at least a $100 with the contract and you need to buy a data plan that's usually at least $30 a month, whether you want it or not.   I was speaking to a Verizon Wireless rep once and asked him about this and he said that all the customers want the smartphones and data plans these days.  He was just some guy answering calls so I wasn't going to get into it about what a load of horse poop that was and what the real reasons are.

The bottom line is that you can count on the government and corporations to do what is in their best interest and not in the interest of the public 100% of the time.  The double whammy is that they're in bed together.

On the subject of internet things though.  Here's a little money saving tip for some of you that may not be aware of it.  Many cable/broadband companies charge you a monthly fee for the use of their equipment (routers/modems.)  the fee is small, usually only around $8-9 but you can often look on Craigslist and find these items for cheap money, like under $30.  If you buy your own you can return the ISP's unit and start saving money.  I bought a cable modem that works with my Comcast cable internet service a few years ago and have saved in the hundreds now.


----------



## begreen (Apr 27, 2014)

Joful said:


> I agree with you, Bro... but I think that's a separate issue from the one at hand.  The net neutrality issue is about allowing large corporations to pay for preferred packet handling, something that already happens at the protocol level (eg. streaming packets preferred over email), but now they're allowing it to happen on a per-customer basis (eg. Google can pay to have their traffic preferred over Yahoo).  It's about ensuring some providers have faster perceived performance, than their competition.



The two issues go hand in glove and are being forced by the same companies. Get 'em hooked and then reel them in. This is happening on a grand scale, the internet is just their latest cherry to pick. In this country we are developing a tradition of helping the wealthy get wealthier and socializing the costs (and debts) on the taxpayer and homeowner.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (May 6, 2014)

and folks think im crazy to own a kindle with not a single book downloaded (i play mahjong on it and that's about it)

I like to read off paper, call me old fashioned, maybe im socially conscious paper books require more workers I suspect to mass produce. I just prefer paper, heck I have books on my shelves that are over 200 years old and yeah, I have read them


----------



## Wildo (May 12, 2014)

Joful said:


> You're not going to win the "war."  No sense in losing every battle along the way, as well.


Wow that's sad.


----------



## TMonter (May 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> The FCC has been complicit selling off airwave neutrality and fairness rules since the Regan administration. Under Powell the FCC removed constraints on media market domination. And these are just a couple of the bullet points on the FCC selling out.
> 
> How many of you love the OTA changes from VHF TV to digital? That change has effectively cut off reception to a lot of rural America. And now they want two paths into every home. One slick and speedy and one prone to dropouts and slow service. Not so great for mom and dad trying to manage their healthcare or social security or for millions of others dealing with banking, shopping, research, school papers, etc.. The net has grown because it has been open and equal to all. Now a few corporations want to capitalize on that, not for social gain, but to please their shareholders. The net should be regulated like other public utilities so that they best serve the public and social justice.
> 
> ...



Considering that the internet developed without much input from the FCC and has been expanding rapidly, the whole whining about net neutrality doesn't mean much.

The whole idea of net neutrality was bogus to begin with and a coverup of the actual problem which was government induced barriers to competition.


----------



## TMonter (May 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> The two issues go hand in glove and are being forced by the same companies. Get 'em hooked and then reel them in. This is happening on a grand scale, the internet is just their latest cherry to pick. In this country we are developing a tradition of helping the wealthy get wealthier and socializing the costs (and debts) on the taxpayer and homeowner.



You asked for big government begreen, what did you expect would happen? What makes you think government people are any less corrupt than business people? At least without government interference in the market, companies have to compete for business.


----------



## Ashful (May 13, 2014)

TMonter said:


> You asked for big government begreen, what did you expect would happen? What makes you think government people are any less corrupt than business people? At least without government interference in the market, companies have to compete for business.


Here, I'll fix it:


begreen said:


> In this country we are [the government is] developing a tradition of helping the wealthy [politicians] get wealthier and socializing the costs (and debts) on the taxpayer [business owner] and homeowner.


----------



## begreen (May 13, 2014)

Same point. Everyone should take a moment to watch this brief essay, then share with friends.


----------



## Grisu (May 13, 2014)

Joful said:


> In this country we are [the government is] developing a tradition of helping the wealthy [politicians] get wealthier and socializing the costs (and debts) on the taxpayer [business owner] and homeowner.



Which is exactly why we lost net neutrality. Now the big companies with the spare capital can purchase higher internet speeds which will give them a competitive advantage. The losers are the small startups that cannot afford preferred treatment. The same can be said for private households where the rich have now better access to resources than the rest.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 13, 2014)

If this happens we will probably have to double the annual membership fee for hearth.com to afford bandwidth.


----------



## begreen (May 13, 2014)

Head of the FCC is now saying he may have read the tea leaves wrong. Having Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc. get in his face seems to have helped. We'll see. A new proposal comes on Thurs. I think.

Showing up on DC streets:


----------



## TMonter (May 13, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Which is exactly why we lost net neutrality. Now the big companies with the spare capital can purchase higher internet speeds which will give them a competitive advantage. The losers are the small startups that cannot afford preferred treatment. The same can be said for private households where the rich have now better access to resources than the rest.



Chicken and egg. You push for government regulation which creates high cost of entry into markets and then complain when it stifles competition? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

The problem is the government regulation and the solution is not even more regulation, which is what the whole net neutrality push is.


----------



## Jags (May 13, 2014)

Lets see what you think when your ISP re-routes (or completely blocks) your traffic to IHateGovernment.com to Socialism.com.

Then imagine if you only have one choice of ISP (which is reported to be about 30% of the country).  Maybe they slow Grover Norquist youtube videos to an absolute crawl...Buffering...

Pay the gatekeeper.  And it is all manufactured.  Not supply and demand.


----------



## TMonter (May 13, 2014)

Jags said:


> Lets see what you think when your ISP re-routes (or completely blocks) your traffic to IHateGovernment.com to Socialism.com.
> 
> Then imagine if you only have one choice of ISP (which is reported to be about 30% of the country).  Maybe they slow Grover Norquist youtube videos to an absolute crawl...Buffering...
> 
> Pay the gatekeeper.  And it is all manufactured.  Not supply and demand.



And when they start doing that Jags, there will be more push and demand for competition that does not do it. That is the great thing about capitalism, when a company displeases customers, someone always inevitably steps in an fills the void provided regulations do not prevent them from doing so. Additionally the availability of multiple ISP's will drive down the price of access.

When you claim 30% of the country only has access to one ISP, is that 30% by land mass or 30% by population? Does that include cellular carriers?(I would bet it doesn't)


----------



## Jags (May 13, 2014)

I don't have a verifiable source for the 30%.  It is a number I have seen thrown around the net, so I don't know the methodology.

I would just as soon not wait for 5 -10 or whatever years it takes for competition to show up on a white horse (even assuming that it will in rural areas) because of a manufactured problem.  And it IS manufactured.  Nothing more than a new revenue stream for the handful of backbone ISPs.  Follow the money, T.  This isn't free market, this is collusion.  They will all do it.  Why not, its now legal.  Your belief that lower cost competition is going to race into the market is not based on reality.  Who is gonna put up a grass roots billion dollar infrastructure WITHOUT using the same market tools (net neutrality) to their advantage?  Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## TMonter (May 13, 2014)

Jags said:


> I don't have a verifiable source for the 30%.  It is a number I have seen thrown around the net, so I don't know the methodology.
> 
> I would just as soon not wait for 5 -10 or whatever years it takes for competition to show up on a white horse (even assuming that it will in rural areas) because of a manufactured problem.  And it IS manufactured.  Nothing more than a new revenue stream for the handful of backbone ISPs.  Follow the money, T.  This isn't free market, this is collusion.  They will all do it.  Why not, its now legal.  Your belief that lower cost competition is going to race into the market is not based on reality.  Who is gonna put up a grass roots billion dollar infrastructure WITHOUT using the same market tools (net neutrality) to their advantage?  Ain't gonna happen.



Actually is is based on reality Jags, this is shown across multiple markets and multiple economic sectors. When there is competition, prices are lower and service is better.

Actually it is free market, not collusion. In fact there are several developing ISP's in many areas and many companies are willing to put money into developing more infrastructure. Your claim that they aren't is simply not true.  Google is in fact a prime example:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/story/2012-08-14/google-fiber/57059702/1

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240181168/Google-rolls-out-super-fast-broadband-to-Austin-Texas

Additionally, your claim that you don't want to give time for competition to develop is because of a government manufactured problem in most cases.

You simply don't like the fact that companies should be allowed to use the infrastructure they built as they see fit. You haven't made a single reasonable, logical argument here Jags. Your claims reside on simple appeals to authority and emotion.

Want a real solution? Kill off all the pointless regulations that prevent competition.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...l-protectionist-laws-written-duopolists.shtml

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/


----------



## Jags (May 13, 2014)

We'll that does explain why I have so many options outside of OTA tv.  Wait a minute.

Get it straight, T.  The FCC was the ones that protected we the people from predatory actions by the backbone ISPs.  Not so, anymore.

This is all probably moot anyhow.  I suspect that the service will soon be treated as phones and electric.  Then it will fall back into FCC control.


----------



## TMonter (May 13, 2014)

Jags said:


> We'll that does explain why I have so many options outside of OTA tv.  Wait a minute.
> 
> Get it straight, T.  The FCC was the ones that protected we the people from predatory actions by the backbone ISPs.  Not so, anymore.
> 
> This is all probably moot anyhow.  I suspect that the service will soon be treated as phones and electric.  Then it will fall back into FCC control.



Which would be a disaster just like phones and electric. Have you seen the current status of the telephone and power industries and infrastructure?

You're making a lot of claims here Jags but as I said, you using the appeal to emotion and authority fallacies without looking at the facts.

Now you're claiming "predatory actions" by backbone companies when you have provided no evidence to support that assertion. If you want to have an actual discussion about the merits of net neutrality, how about use some facts for a change instead of rhetoric.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 13, 2014)

I saw how that open Internet competition worked out. And ended up. In 1999.

The facts involving the five tier one nets will be available all too soon now T.


----------



## Jags (May 14, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Now you're claiming "predatory actions" by backbone companies when you have provided no evidence to support that assertion.



Its been illegal up till now, T.  This is new territory.  All I can state is what they have as a "new found" ability to do, and most likely what they WILL do with this new "freedom".

I know it probably is the equivalent of driving a stake into your heart, but the FCC was keeping a fair playing ground for all.  Now, with enough cash, you can buy your way to the top.  I can only assume that this is exactly what you want based off of your arguments.
When Google and Amazon and Microsoft own the net, then what??  How about Soros or the Koch bros?  If this is your idea of the net going forwards in the name of "free market" - shame on you.  And corporations are people too.


----------



## Ashful (May 14, 2014)

Tmonter:  I agree with most of your ideals, particularly "the great thing about capitalism, when a company displeases customers, someone always inevitably steps in an fills the void provided regulations do not prevent them from doing so."  However, you're not really getting anywhere with this argument.  This is a crowd very clearly sold on the idea that more government involvement is the fix for most problems.


----------



## Jags (May 14, 2014)

Joful said:


> This is a crowd very clearly sold on the idea that more government involvement is the fix for most problems.



No - I am nowhere near sold on that idea.  I think we have huge government bloat that needs to be addressed.  I also believe that there needs to be rules, regulations and laws that allow for fair competition.  Its the only reason that Microsoft (as one example) didn't buy up the computer world.  Nobody likes it when corps and mega wealthy got a free pass on opening their checkbooks for political reasons.  And trust me - nobody is gonna like big checkbooks buying up the internet either.


----------



## begreen (May 14, 2014)

In the utopian world there is no greed, no monopolies. Corporations care about the citizens and do no harm. All we need to do is get rid of humans and replace them with robots.


----------



## Grisu (May 14, 2014)

Joful said:


> Tmonter:  I agree with most of your ideals, particularly "the great thing about capitalism, when a company displeases customers, someone always inevitably steps in an fills the void provided regulations do not prevent them from doing so."



That assumes the customers have the money to entice the companies to do so. As we will see with the net neutrality, capitalism caters to the wealthy who create their own little "bubble" and forget about the rest of the population. When those "customers" have not enough money no one will step in. A few are better off, a lot are doing worse. 

The idea of a democratic government is also not the problem; It is that they are not representing the whole society anymore. For years, governments have been serving corporate interests and people complain about the state of the US. Now you want to get rid off government altogether and let companies run the show? Wait until all the capital and power are concentrated in a few hands and then tell me how those "free markets" are working out for you. The millions who go hungry to bed or die from treatable diseases can tell you how well capitalism works for the poor. 

(Btw. Are you not working for the government, too?)


----------



## Grisu (May 14, 2014)

TMonter said:


> http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/



 I just read that article and can hardly type for laughing. Did you actually read it? Here are some excerpts:

"For fifteen years now I've watched as phone and cable duopolies lobby to pass draft legislation designed to keep broadband uncompetitive. Specifically, in more than a dozen states these protectionist measures either hinder or outright ban a town or city's ability to wire itself for broadband (either alone or with a private industry partner)..."

"The worst part of these bills is that at their base they're simply duopolists buying laws that keep towns and cities from making regional infrastructure decisions for themselves, whether that's building their own core fiber network or developing a public/private network build partnership."

Let me get that straight: You would actually support a government built network? (You are not turning in a socialist now, are you?) And you would agree with the point that big companies use their wealth to buy the political power that maintains their market share? So who is the real culprit here, the government or big business? And now you want to give up on net neutrality regulations that are against corporate interests?  (Still laughing.)


----------



## TMonter (May 14, 2014)

Jags said:


> No - I am nowhere near sold on that idea.  I think we have huge government bloat that needs to be addressed.  I also believe that there needs to be rules, regulations and laws that allow for fair competition.  Its the only reason that Microsoft (as one example) didn't buy up the computer world.  Nobody likes it when corps and mega wealthy got a free pass on opening their checkbooks for political reasons.  And trust me - nobody is gonna like big checkbooks buying up the internet either.



Define "fair competition" Jags, the government already creates huge barriers to entry at both the local, state and national levels.

That's false about Microsoft by the way, but a topic of another discussion.

The whole idea of net neutrality is that the government should force ISP's (who paid for and developed the infrastructure) to treat all data on the internet equally. This means they are not allowed to differentiate by data type and charge different rates for different users.

All the "logic" (ie appeals to authority and emotion) supporting this position I've seen here is basically free-market hate and ignorance of how we got here in the first place.


----------



## TMonter (May 14, 2014)

Grisu said:


> I just read that article and can hardly type for laughing. Did you actually read it? Here are some excerpts:
> 
> "For fifteen years now I've watched as phone and cable duopolies lobby to pass draft legislation designed to keep broadband uncompetitive. Specifically, in more than a dozen states these protectionist measures either hinder or outright ban a town or city's ability to wire itself for broadband (either alone or with a private industry partner)..."
> 
> ...



No Grisu, perhaps you should understand my argument for a change. The wired article gets the right problem and draws the wrong conclusion.


----------



## TMonter (May 14, 2014)

Grisu said:


> That assumes the customers have the money to entice the companies to do so. As we will see with the net neutrality, capitalism caters to the wealthy who create their own little "bubble" and forget about the rest of the population. When those "customers" have not enough money no one will step in. A few are better off, a lot are doing worse.
> 
> The idea of a democratic government is also not the problem; It is that they are not representing the whole society anymore. For years, governments have been serving corporate interests and people complain about the state of the US. Now you want to get rid off government altogether and let companies run the show? Wait until all the capital and power are concentrated in a few hands and then tell me how those "free markets" are working out for you. The millions who go hungry to bed or die from treatable diseases can tell you how well capitalism works for the poor.
> 
> (Btw. Are you not working for the government, too?)



Actually Grisu, if this were the case the public would have never gotten automobiles, cell phones and a myriad of other technologies that capitalism brought about. Capitalism caters to companies who can please the most customers and get them to voluntarily buy their products. The idea that capitalism only enriches a few is false and a child's argument that has been busted over and over again. The companies that do the best inevitably serve the greatest number of people.

The idea of a democratic government is the problem. Democratic governments always evolve into oligarchies or dictatorships when the people (or their representatives) are allowed to vote on everything.

Ahh more appeals to emotion. The problem is not that governments serve corporate interests Grisu, it's that they even have the power to do so in the first place. If the government cannot pick winners and losers by regulating (other than to protect property and lives) then companies must compete for customers on the quality of their service.

And no, I do not work for the government.


----------



## Grisu (May 14, 2014)

TMonter said:


> The whole idea of net neutrality is that the government should force ISP's (who paid for and developed the infrastructure) to treat all data on the internet equally. This means they are not allowed to differentiate by data type and charge different rates for different users.



A lot of the infrastructure has been built using the publics-right-of-way. Hence, net neutrality is simply the price to be paid by the network companies for using that privilige. Free market, remember? 





TMonter said:


> No Grisu, perhaps you should understand my argument for a change. The wired article gets the right problem and draws the wrong conclusion.



How many of the bills mentioned in the article prevent private companies from building networks?


----------



## Jags (May 14, 2014)

"The worst part of these bills is that at their base they're simply duopolists buying laws that keep towns and cities from making regional infrastructure decisions for themselves, whether that's building their own core fiber network or developing a public/private network build partnership."

Slid right over that one, eh T? Oh - but these corps will do what is right by the people.  Yeah - gimme a break.


----------



## MishMouse (May 14, 2014)

The fact that these people control the laws and the future of technology should create a slight uneasy feeling.

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/in-us-when-high-tech-meets-high-court-high-jinks-ensue 

How can someone decide the future of technology if they themselves don't understand it?


----------



## Grisu (May 14, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Actually Grisu, if this were the case the public would have never gotten automobiles, cell phones and a myriad of other technologies that capitalism brought about.



As long as someone lends those customers the money: http://static6.businessinsider.com/...50000/household-debt-as-percentage-of-gdp.jpg


> Capitalism caters to companies who can please the most customers and get them to voluntarily buy their products.



Wants are voluntarily bought, not needs.


> The idea that capitalism only enriches a few is false and a child's argument that has been busted over and over again.



Empirical fact:









> The companies that do the best inevitably serve the greatest number of people.



You must tell that to the Indian and Chinese companies. They have apparently not understood capitalism when catering to American consumers instead of their home markets.


> The idea of a democratic government is the problem. Democratic governments always evolve into oligarchies or dictatorships when the people (or their representatives) are allowed to vote on everything.



The problem is not the democratic idea that all citizens can participate equally in the political process but that the wealthy will rig the system in their favor. The same and worse would happen without the government. 


> And no, I do not work for the government.



I did not quote you.


----------



## DBNH22 (May 14, 2014)

Grisu said:


> The problem is not the democratic idea that all citizens can participate equally in the political process but that the wealthy will rig the system in their favor. The same and worse would happen without the government.



The wealthy may have rigged the system in their favor but they sure had a lot of help from both our self serving federal government and a population whose main characteristics are stupidity and apathy.


----------



## bmblank (May 14, 2014)

Your graph assumed that the country is becoming more and more capitalistic. I would contend that we are less capitalistic now than we were in 1917. If we were truly capitalists than the company's that are "too big to fail" would have actually failed and companies that value selling a good product or service would succeed.


----------



## Grisu (May 14, 2014)

Dana B said:


> The wealthy may have rigged the system in their favor but they sure had a lot of help from ... a population whose main characteristics are stupidity and apathy.



Surely not including people who don't have the capital but defend the ones who have? 



bmblank said:


> Your graph assumed that the country is becoming more and more capitalistic. I would contend that we are less capitalistic now than we were in 1917. If we were truly capitalists than the company's that are "too big to fail" would have actually failed and companies that value selling a good product or service would succeed.



Here is a graph normalized for overall income. We have reached early 20th century levels again. 




Guess who did not want the banks to fail: The capitalists who were about to lose their money. When taxpayers are anyway assuming all the risk, we should switch to full 100% reserve banking, which means government assumes full control over the currency. But who would vote for *more* government?


----------



## DBNH22 (May 14, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Surely not including people who don't have the capital but defend the ones who have?
> 
> ?



It's possible to make distinctions among those who do have the capital as to their individual levels of moral depravity.  I have a considerable amount of loathing for both big business and big government yet logic dictates that I cannot rightfully despise every last individual with a dollar more in their pocket than I have in mine.

You kind of beat around the bush but give me the impression that you're an ardent advocate for collectivism in most if not all of its forms.  In a truly civilized and compassionate society we must have social obligations but unchecked, mindless collectivism is the perfect antithesis of man's innate individuality.


----------



## begreen (May 15, 2014)




----------



## TMonter (May 15, 2014)

Grisu said:


> As long as someone lends those customers the money: http://static6.businessinsider.com/...50000/household-debt-as-percentage-of-gdp.jpg
> 
> 
> Wants are voluntarily bought, not needs.
> ...



The problem is you are claiming what we have now is capitalism and it's not, it's a bastardized version of it called Crony Capitalism or mercantilism.

Again you seem to have bought into the idea that just because there is a democratic process that it has good outcomes. History shows us this is far from the truth.


----------



## TMonter (May 15, 2014)

bmblank said:


> Your graph assumed that the country is becoming more and more capitalistic. I would contend that we are less capitalistic now than we were in 1917. If we were truly capitalists than the company's that are "too big to fail" would have actually failed and companies that value selling a good product or service would succeed.



Bingo! In a capitalist system the "too big to fail" banks would have failed and their assets sold. Instead the bad actors were bailed out.


----------



## TMonter (May 15, 2014)

Grisu said:


> A lot of the infrastructure has been built using the publics-right-of-way. Hence, net neutrality is simply the price to be paid by the network companies for using that privilige. Free market, remember?
> 
> How many of the bills mentioned in the article prevent private companies from building networks?



Except that that is not how the right of way access was used now was it?

Actually quite a few have clauses in them that prevent competition by other firms.


----------



## begreen (May 15, 2014)

Gaming the system, the Verizon way. 
http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5...-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers


----------



## TMonter (May 15, 2014)

begreen said:


> Gaming the system, the Verizon way.
> http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5...-verizon-is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers



And yet there is no argument made in the article other than appeals to emotion and authority yet again.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 15, 2014)

begreen said:


> Gaming the system, the Verizon way.



I talked about that here before. I have seen the Red V noose tightening around my neck here for four years and it is nearing completion. Being one of the last copper holdouts now that FIOS is in our hood, they want to do me great favors by connecting me to FIOS and changing my monthly cost from $35 to $134 a month.


----------



## Ashful (May 15, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> I talked about that here before. I have seen the Red V noose tightening around my neck here for four years and it is nearing completion. Being one of the last copper holdouts now that FIOS is in our hood, they want to do me great favors by connecting me to FIOS and changing my monthly cost from $35 to $134 a month.


Are they really the only game in town?  We have almost a half-dozen mainstream choices, here, with Verizon and Comcast being the two big players (probably each owning about 40% of the local market).  If you want superior channel selection, and don't mind YouTube throttling, then you go Verizon.  If you get upset with them, and don't mind losing most of your best channels (AHC, Military History, BBC, etc.), then you skip over to Comcast.  If you want to buck the system, and think you're making some kind of point, you jump to one of the half dozen smaller players.


----------



## begreen (May 15, 2014)

Depends on the location. Here we only have two options for broadband, Comcast cable and CenturyLink dsl. You could do Verizon 4G if near one of their cells I suppose, but we are not.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 15, 2014)

Somebody explain to me why I should have to sign up with Comcast cable just to have a freakin telephone. Or triple my bill just so Verizon can move to unregulated VOIP and at the same time save money by not having to maintain the copper lines.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 15, 2014)

Joful said:


> Are they really the only game in town? We have almost a half-dozen mainstream choices, here



Since they own the "last mile" to the house, yes they are the only game in town.


----------



## begreen (May 15, 2014)

FCC hearing is on. Wireless spectrum auction report is the topic right now.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?319385-1/fcc-meeting-net-neutrality-wireless-spectrum


----------



## begreen (May 15, 2014)

Looks like the FCC waffled, but "could change it's mind". 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/


----------



## Jags (May 15, 2014)

Idiots.


----------



## begreen (May 15, 2014)

They have huge pressures on both sides of the issue and are trying to seek a middle ground. They end up pleasing no one, but Comcast, et al clearly got the nod here. But what would one expect with a cable company lobbyist running the show? Anyhow it's a preliminary proposal. Expect plenty of sparks during the commentary period.


----------



## Jags (May 15, 2014)

Oh - this is far from over.


----------



## Bobbin (May 15, 2014)

The FCC scares the hell out of me.  All you have to do is watch network news to realize how far they've strayed from the original mandate and what they now provide as comprehensive news coverage.  Uncle Walt. would roll over in his grave at what has been foisted upon an unwary populace.  JMO.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 15, 2014)

With a wireless and cable lobbyist chairing the FCC what does ya s'pect?


----------



## Grisu (May 15, 2014)

TMonter said:


> The problem is you are claiming what we have now is capitalism and it's not, it's a bastardized version of it called Crony Capitalism or mercantilism.
> 
> Again you seem to have bought into the idea that just because there is a democratic process that it has good outcomes. History shows us this is far from the truth.



Strawman. I never claimed democracy was perfect. However, I do not complain about businesses running the government (your "crony capitalism") and then offer as solution to get rid off a democratically elected government and let the country being run by corporations. How that is supposed to make the general population better off eludes me. 


TMonter said:


> Actually quite a few have clauses in them that prevent competition by other firms.



Since you are so high on "facts", cite some of those bills.


----------



## Grisu (May 15, 2014)

Dana B said:


> It's possible to make distinctions among those who do have the capital as to their individual levels of moral depravity.  I have a considerable amount of loathing for both big business and big government yet logic dictates that I cannot rightfully despise every last individual with a dollar more in their pocket than I have in mine.



Quite right. If someone is wealthy due to producing and selling a good or service that many people liked and bought, I have no problems with that. I have problems with someone whose wealth is mostly coming from capital gains as they did not really produce anything to improve our livelihood. (E. g. For stock market gains, they transferred other people savings to themselves.) 



> You kind of beat around the bush but give me the impression that you're an ardent advocate for collectivism in most if not all of its forms.  In a truly civilized and compassionate society we must have social obligations but unchecked, mindless collectivism is the perfect antithesis of man's innate individuality.



Interesting point. Is unchecked, mindless individualism any better? How about controlled, mindful collectivism?


----------



## TMonter (May 15, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Strawman. I never claimed democracy was perfect. However, I do not complain about businesses running the government (your "crony capitalism") and then offer as solution to get rid off a democratically elected government and let the country being run by corporations. How that is supposed to make the general population better off eludes me.



Because a corporation's power under a capitalist system is directly linked linked to how well they perform and please customers. In other words Grisu, they gain power through voluntary cooperation, not force.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 15, 2014)

If all have access to the market T. The carrier class telcos proved that by stomping Internet ass in 1999. Infrastructure on that scale is a major bar to entry to a market. Had it not been for regulation there would only be five ISPs in the whole country not requiring a dish on your roof.


----------



## Grisu (May 15, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Because a corporation's power under a capitalist system is directly linked linked to how well they perform and please customers. In other words Grisu, they gain power through voluntary cooperation, not force.



Not if they are the only source of wages AND goods and services. Free market implies two parties with equal standing; not that one party holds all the aces. There won't be voluntary cooperation even in your utopian capitalism which btw. is not really different from feudalism.


----------



## Ashful (May 16, 2014)

So, now we're debating feudalism vs socialism?


----------



## DBNH22 (May 16, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Quite right. If someone is wealthy due to producing and selling a good or service that many people liked and bought, I have no problems with that. I have problems with someone whose wealth is mostly coming from capital gains as they did not really produce anything to improve our livelihood. (E. g. For stock market gains, they transferred other people savings to themselves.)
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting point. Is unchecked, mindless individualism any better? How about controlled, mindful collectivism?




I think the ideal is system is one where the average person consistently lives up to the ideal that they treat everyone else with the same respect, compassion and concern that they'd like to be treated with while simultaneously minimizing the laws and social constraints that hinder a person from living their life as they see fit to maximize their personal satisfaction, with the exceptions of behaviors that would harm others.


----------



## Jags (May 16, 2014)

This whole idea that people or corporations are gonna be all glorious and righteous with rainbows flying out of their butts is so far from reality that it doesn't make for an honest conversation.  How many years or examples of corporate greed and/or personal greed needs to be thrown into the ring before the idea of "corps will do what is right by the customer" to solidify the ridiculous argument that it is.  IT IS NOT REALITY.


----------



## DBNH22 (May 16, 2014)

Jags said:


> This whole idea that people or corporations are gonna be all glorious and righteous with rainbows flying out of their butts is so far from reality that it doesn't make for an honest conversation.  How many years or examples of corporate greed and/or personal greed needs to be thrown into the ring before the idea of "corps will do what is right by the customer" to solidify the ridiculous argument that it is.  IT IS NOT REALITY.




You're absolutely right but on the other hand are we all going to succumb to complete greed and say hey it's just the way it so why bother ever giving a damn about anyone but myself?  There has to be some accountability and middle ground.


----------



## Jags (May 16, 2014)

Dana B said:


> You're absolutely right but on the other hand are we all going to succumb to complete greed and say hey it's just the way it so why bother ever giving a damn about anyone but myself?  There has to be some accountability and middle ground.



Not at all.  That is why my prior post rings true.  We need a responsible set of rules, regs and laws with honest enforcement of them (no special treatment).  The reality of that is - it takes some government intervention to make that happen.  Its just the way it is.


----------



## Grisu (May 16, 2014)

Dana B said:


> I think the ideal is system is one where the average person consistently lives up to the ideal that they treat everyone else with the same respect, compassion and concern that they'd like to be treated with while simultaneously minimizing the laws and social constraints that hinder a person from living their life as they see fit to maximize their personal satisfaction, with the exceptions of behaviors that would harm others.



Sounds nice but applying it to the topic at hand: The owners of the ISPs want to maximize their "personal satisfaction" (profits) by charging more for their services. Would that behavior be harmless to others? Let's play a possible scenario through with hearth.com: With just ad generated revenue, this site would not be able to afford preferred bandwith. Over time, the site becomes slow and clunky, leading to reduced pageviews. That will impact ad revenue, which will initiate a downward spiral when hearth.com becomes a holdout of a few stubborn enthusiasts but rarely visited by the new woodburners who really need the advice given here. Or: hearth.com becomes a fee-for-service model which will prevent many newbies from even signing up and oldtimers dropping out because who wants to pay just for the bantering here?! 

That's the danger when you restrict access to information and knowledge.


----------



## DBNH22 (May 16, 2014)

Jags said:


> Not at all.  That is why my prior post rings true.  We need a responsible set of rules, regs and laws with honest enforcement of them (no special treatment).




There's the rub, there are 10,001 different definitions of reasonable.


----------



## Jags (May 16, 2014)

Dana B said:


> There's the rub, there are 10,001 different definitions of reasonable.


And there always will be.  Hell, we can't even get a consensus on how long it takes to season firewood.


----------



## begreen (May 17, 2014)

Here is a 60 sec action item.


----------



## TMonter (May 18, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Sounds nice but applying it to the topic at hand: The owners of the ISPs want to maximize their "personal satisfaction" (profits) by charging more for their services. Would that behavior be harmless to others? Let's play a possible scenario through with hearth.com: With just ad generated revenue, this site would not be able to afford preferred bandwith. Over time, the site becomes slow and clunky, leading to reduced pageviews. That will impact ad revenue, which will initiate a downward spiral when hearth.com becomes a holdout of a few stubborn enthusiasts but rarely visited by the new woodburners who really need the advice given here. Or: hearth.com becomes a fee-for-service model which will prevent many newbies from even signing up and oldtimers dropping out because who wants to pay just for the bantering here?!
> 
> That's the danger when you restrict access to information and knowledge.



And? If hearth.com can't provide enough service that people want why shouldn't it die a natural death?


----------



## TMonter (May 18, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Not if they are the only source of wages AND goods and services. Free market implies two parties with equal standing; not that one party holds all the aces. There won't be voluntary cooperation even in your utopian capitalism which btw. is not really different from feudalism.



Except that corporations are not the only source of wages and goods and services now are they?

History says differently Grisu, most of the progress made has been with voluntary cooperation.


----------



## webbie (May 18, 2014)

Dana B said:


> I think the ideal is system is one where the average person consistently lives up to the ideal that they treat everyone else with the same respect, compassion and concern that they'd like to be treated with while simultaneously minimizing the laws and social constraints that hinder a person from living their life as they see fit to maximize their personal satisfaction, with the exceptions of behaviors that would harm others.



They tried this one in about 26,000 B.C. and it didn't work out too well so they invented gubment. Some cave dweller decided that "respect" was popping another dude over the head and taking his mastodon meat away. 


Heck, check around - see how many families (internally) live up to this creed. Now make it billions of time more complex and you can start to see the problem(s).

As my dad says "It's the best system around - but it sucks".

Heck, can't even agree on vanilla, chocolate or twist at the custard shack.

As to "net neutrality", I'm somewhat torn. The idea that a company like Netflix can come along and abuse (yes, I think that's the right word) the entire system and piggyback their profits off of others does not seem right. The idea of neutrality (equal access and speed) is all good and fine when it came to email and simple web pages - but start streaming vast amounts of full time info and the pipes are soon filled up.

We may all have equal access to the interstates, but the trucks pay vastly more in gas taxes, registration fees, etc. and they don't get their meals or showers for free at the rest stops either. 

I suspect a middle ground is the answer. Those investing heavily in infrastructure deserve compensation.

I remember when Charter installed our IP phone line - they said it uses the same cable and network, but it doesn't clash with the internet traffic. I assume that's a similar thing - it uses a different channel (freq?) over the same line.

Without a lot of study on the issue, if I were King Solomon I'd say Netflix should pay big time....for the vast amount of quasi-public services they are using. As a Netflix user, paying another $1 or $2 a month in order to fairly compensate the big carriers would be fine with me.

Heck, I'm turning corporate...but it's only fair. At least so it seems...


----------



## BrotherBart (May 18, 2014)

Except that the tier ones already collect from the user for tiered bandwidth now. What is going to happen now is just like with cell phones, getting paid by both the one placing  the call and the one receiving receiving it at the same time.


----------



## webbie (May 18, 2014)

By the time they all finish fighting about it, google will have their balloons up there and facebook their solar-drones and they will provide connections for free!

http://www.google.com/loon/


----------



## BrotherBart (May 18, 2014)

webbie said:


> By the time they all finish fighting about it, google will have their balloons up there and facebook their solar-drones and they will provide connections for free!
> 
> http://www.google.com/loon/



Just long enough to cripple the competition and then the new "plans" come on the scene. Been there, done that when the cell phone competition of was hot and heavy and Internet competition was hot and heavy. Cingular used to bury me in new stuff every time I went in to pay the bill. AT&T bought'em and called me and told me double the price or go away. Same thing with Verizon when they killed off the local ISPs.

Now AT&T is buying the service for that dish on my roof. I am real sure they are going to send me a note telling me how the price is gonna go down. Yeah right.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Just long enough to cripple the competition and then the new "plans" come on the scene. Been there, done that when the cell phone competition of was hot and heavy and Internet competition was hot and heavy. Cingular used to bury me in new stuff every time I went in to pay the bill. AT&T bought'em and called me and told me double the price or go away. Same thing with Verizon when they killed off the local ISPs.
> 
> Now AT&T is buying the service for that dish on my roof. I am real sure they are going to send me a note telling me how the price is gonna go down. Yeah right.



Good Op-Ed on reason about Net Neutrality:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/18/net-neutrality-nonsense


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

"won’t risk the gauntlet, thus depriving us of the next fantastic service."

Right.  Cuz under the current FCC oversight the internet has been so slow to roll out new and innovative internet based services.  It is a non-issue and has been for years.  Tell me ONE example of how the FCC stomped a new or innovative internet based service.

Nothing like basing your side of the argument on a boogeyman that doesn't exist.  If anything - pulling the FCC out is gonna do more harm to the little guys.  We know how things work today - and they work well.  Moving to a free market crapshoot of the highest band width bidder wins is not going to have the results you (or the author of that drivel) think they will.

Give it a couple of years running without net neutrality and I am quite sure I will be able to name you many - many examples of how innovation has been stomped on.


----------



## Grisu (May 19, 2014)

And here the exact opposite take how net neutrality was one of the driving forces of the internet revolution:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...booting-the-network-neutrality-debate/361809/

Some quotes:

"In 2007, while the FCC was investigating Comcast’s blocking of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications like BitTorrent, many entrepreneurs told me that they couldn’t get funding because investors were concerned their application would be singled out for discriminatory bandwidth management. ... The bottom line: uncertainty about how new applications and services will be treated on the network does not create a climate conducive to investment."

"If large, established companies can pay ISPs so that their application loads faster or doesn’t count against users’ monthly bandwidth caps, entrepreneurs and start-ups that can’t pay will be unable to compete. This increases the level of investment needed to start a new application, killing the Internet version of the American dream. "

"The FCC’s commitment to and enforcement of this basic principle—that ISPs don’t get to pick winners and losers on the Internet—means Internet users in the U.S. haven’t had to worry about whether ISPs might block or discriminate against certain kinds of content or applications. Innovators who have an idea for a new application have not needed permission from Internet service providers in order to innovate and have been able to realize their ideas at low cost. This is a well-oiled free market at work."

Another similar opinion: http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-net-neutrality-decision-2014-5


----------



## webbie (May 19, 2014)

Both can be true! I was around at the start of the net and they did all kinds of stuff like forgiving sales tax under state law (NJ), etc.....they did it for a fixed number of years.

NN definitely helped this thing get going- big time. Of course, the big unsaid which really spurred the internet bandwidth in this country is that most of the money ended up being scammed from investors...that is, many of the failing companies in the dot-com boom ended up losing or selling cheaply their rights, lines, etc.
So, in effect, a "tax" on a large part of the stock market was extracted....gave us extra bandwidth for almost a decade.

But now use is starting to catch up with the capacity...which is my guess as to why this issue is coming to the forefront.

It would be interesting to know who the top 5 players are....is it AT&T and a couple of the cable companies? Or do firms like Savvis and L3 still control a big piece?

Another metric is "how much does a residential customer need?". This could be likened to gas lines and electric lines and meters. They typically won't deliver 440v 3 phase power to your house, nor enough gas to run 10 million BTU's, etc.

I'd say the current max needed for the end user (consumers) is enough to run a couple Netflix movies in HD. Netflix consumes about 30% of peak bandwidth on the net (according to one source). Personally, I don't need more than one stream...and I could understand if my cable company wanted to charge me more for multiple streams.

Even with all the burps, the net - as a whole - has worked fairly well in terms of getting most everyone up and running. Sure, other (smaller) countries do better, but it's easier to lay lines in a smaller area and latency is also less over short distances.

Netflix claims you need 1.5 Mbps for a decent movie and 3 Mbps for very high def. If that's the case, even 5Mbps as a guarantee would do well for 90% plus of users.

In a nutshell, I see the problem as this. From the start of the internet, the entire network capacities were built on the idea that no one used the stuff constantly. An ISP may have had 500 customers but only enough bandwidth for 50 of them at one time (because usually only 20 were dialed in!). Now we have binge TV watching on Netflix changing the situation.

I'm all for NN....with the caveat that the companies should be paid enough. Big firms like AT&T do not make extensive profits when compared against their capital outlays and cost of doing business. They pay a 5% dividend which eats up over 1/2 of their profits. That means they make a total of less than 10%, which seems a fair profit.

Not to say I'm in bed with AT&T, but if a retiree, pension fund or individual wishes to get a 5% return on their money with relatively low risk, T should be able to provide it without going broke.

Bottom Line - the net has brought up many a question which didn't exist before. This goes for everything from copyright to broadcast and now is bleeding over to bandwidth. All of these new problems must be solved as we go along - without killing the goose.

And, BB, when they up your monthly price by 5%, just remember when we all wanted to get connections 1/10th that fast in 1997 - for $800-$100 a month (fractional T1's).

If I had to complain about something, it would be that in our summer house we pay the full boat for internet - even though we are not there even 20% of the time! I checked it out and we could even stream netflix through out cellular there (it's quick enough). Problem is that we'd run out of cellular data.

Can't win.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Jags said:


> "won’t risk the gauntlet, thus depriving us of the next fantastic service."
> 
> Right.  Cuz under the current FCC oversight the internet has been so slow to roll out new and innovative internet based services.  It is a non-issue and has been for years.  Tell me ONE example of how the FCC stomped a new or innovative internet based service.
> 
> ...



You're the one basing your argument on a boogeyman that doesn't exist Jags.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...gnore-the-silly-net-neutrality-advocates.html


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

Pay for what?  Don't you already pay for the bandwidth that you are allowed?  If you have a 1.5 or 10 gig package (or whatever) you have paid for that bandwidth to your home.  From that point on it should be as simple as - give me what I searched for at the band width that I paid for.  Companies or corps that don't do that should have their peepee whacked.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Grisu said:


> And here the exact opposite take how net neutrality was one of the driving forces of the internet revolution:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...booting-the-network-neutrality-debate/361809/
> 
> Some quotes:
> ...



And yet these articles ignore the fallout companies like Comcast experienced for blocking such services. There was an incredible backlash in many of the areas served by these companies.

What I see is a lot of scare mongering about things that could happen, not what does happen in the marketplace.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Jags said:


> Pay for what?  Don't you already pay for the bandwidth that you are allowed?  If you have a 1.5 or 10 gig package (or whatever) you have paid for that bandwidth to your home.  From that point on it should be as simple as - give me what I searched for at the band width that I paid for.  Companies or corps that don't do that should have their peepee whacked.



I don't disagree, but leave it as a pay for play strategy, no regulation needed.

Now if you are paying for a service and they are not giving it to you, that is a case of fraud and should be handled as such.


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

T -that is nothing more than a re-write of the first article you posted.  Same argument, same bogus claim.

Of all people - I would think that YOU would fight for a 10 meg package to your home should deliver 10 meg of streaming data of WHATEVER you are looking for.  Don't mess around with my 10 meg I am paying for.


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Now if you are paying for a service and they are not giving it to you, that is a case of fraud and should be handled as such.



What part of this is confusing?  How can it be fraud when there are no rules?
How many tons is your log splitter producing by real math?  What was it advertised as?  Company still in business????


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Jags said:


> T -that is nothing more than a re-write of the first article you posted.  Same argument, same bogus claim.
> 
> Of all people - I would think that YOU would fight for a 10 meg package to your home should deliver 10 meg of streaming data of WHATEVER you are looking for.  Don't mess around with my 10 meg I am paying for.



No Jags, a 10 Meg package should provide up to 10 mbits of bandwidth under ideal conditions. If I'm trying to connect to a site that is poorly managed or can't afford for more bandwidth that is their issue to deal with. If they refuse to pay for more bandwidth or access why should anyone be required to give it to them?

You still haven't made a single logical argument here. All I see on the net neutrality side is a lot of scare mongering of what might happen. 

It reminds me of the (False) Republican claims to the buildup of the Iraq War quite honestly.


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

TMonter said:


> No Jags, a 10 Meg package should provide up to 10 mbits of bandwidth under ideal conditions. If I'm trying to connect to a site that is poorly managed or can't afford for more bandwidth that is their issue to deal with. If they refuse to pay for more bandwidth or access why should anyone be required to give it to them?
> 
> You still haven't made a single logical argument here.



WHAT?  You don't think that Billy Bobs Website Hosting is paying for their end of the connection???  Is their some magical FREE pipeline to the backbone operators that I am not aware of??  There is a very good reason that you are quoted upload AND download speed.
And you are wrong - if you are paying for a 10 meg connection - it should be 10 meg.  You of all people should back that.  You don't pay for a gallon of gas to expect only half a gallon.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Jags said:


> WHAT?  You don't think that Billy Bobs Website Hosting is paying for their end of the connection???  Is their some magical FREE pipeline to the backbone operators that I am not aware of??



So what is the problem with expecting people to pay for the bandwidth that they use then? Shouldn't the heaviest users pay the most?


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

TMonter said:


> So what is the problem with expecting people to pay for the bandwidth that they use then? Shouldn't the heaviest users pay the most?



T - you are loosing your debating marbles.  That is exactly what I am saying.  Walmart isn't running their website on a T1 line.  I am sure it is much larger than that. And they are paying for it.  These providers are ALREADY getting payed.  They are trying to find a NEW revenue stream for what they are ALREADY paid for.

When you go to hearth.com you are downloading the data from a PAID for package to your home.  Guess what the other side of the equation is?  Yep - you probably guessed it by now...the owner of hearth.com UPLOADED that data with a PAID FOR connection of the appropriate size to serve that data to you (and the many others that are searching the site).  So WHO isn't paying their fair share?


----------



## Grisu (May 19, 2014)

The problem is the company that gets the backlash will not be the ISP but the internet business whose service will be slow and cumbersome compared with more well-funded competitors. And that will stifle competition and entrench current big players. ISPs will also have a big leg up then when they can offer their content services at superfast speeds while having other people pay extra for that privilege. We'll see how long Netflix will survive when Comcast and others can offer their own movie streaming service running faster than Netflix's. 



TMonter said:


> So what is the problem with expecting people to pay for the bandwidth that they use then?



That's what they do. You don't even seem to understand the argument. Someone is paying a higher phone rate when doing more calls. However, they are not going to be connected faster or having a better connection because they pay a higher rate.


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

Grisu said:


> We'll see how long Netflix will survive when Comcast and others can offer their own movie streaming service running faster than Netflix's.



DING, DING, DING.  Loss of even playing fields = loss of competition.


----------



## begreen (May 19, 2014)

Don't forget that this also affects DSL providers. There are several of them. Will they be left behind. Hope not, cable is often not an option for rural services. 

For some reason the main players in Europe are surviving fine with an open internet. No fast lane allowed there. And the rates are reasonable. 
http://dsl.1und1.de/dsl-mit-vertrag...=ct.showroom.dslpakete.1&linkType=txt#details
And they often pay a lot less for wireless services there too. It's rare for one to have a contract unless one has it for business. This is not about the market dictating what it wants. No one I know of likes being bound to a 2 yr contract to a phone co.. It's just tolerated because there are few reliable alternatives, though T-Mobile and others are starting to introduce more European style programs recently.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

begreen said:


> Don't forget that this also affects DSL providers. There are several of them. Will they be left behind. Hope not, cable is often not an option for rural services.
> 
> For some reason the main players in Europe are surviving fine with an open internet. No fast lane allowed there. And the rates are reasonable.
> http://dsl.1und1.de/dsl-mit-vertrag...=ct.showroom.dslpakete.1&linkType=txt#details
> And they often pay a lot less for wireless services there too. It's rare for one to have a contract unless one has it for business. This is not about the market dictating what it wants. No one I know of likes being bound to a 2 yr contract to a phone co.. It's just tolerated because there are few reliable alternatives, though T-Mobile and others are starting to introduce more European style programs recently.



Europe has a dense population, hardly the same demographic and hardly the same infrastructure costs.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 19, 2014)

webbie said:


> And, BB, when they up your monthly price by 5%, just remember when we all wanted to get connections 1/10th that fast in 1997 - for $800-$100 a month (fractional T1's).



Going from $35 a month to $80 is a tad more than 5%. And after two years it jumps to $120. Sure more bandwidth and some phone stuff. All that I don't need since I am happy with what I have now. 

Leased a bunch of T1s and a couple of T3s over the years at work. Had a fractional T1 into the house from 2001 to 2006 for $800 a month when I could feed the expense to the taxpayer as a small business. That synchronous one megabit kicks the crap out of async  multi-megabit.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Jags said:


> T - you are loosing your debating marbles.  That is exactly what I am saying.  Walmart isn't running their website on a T1 line.  I am sure it is much larger than that. And they are paying for it.  These providers are ALREADY getting payed.  They are trying to find a NEW revenue stream for what they are ALREADY paid for.
> 
> When you go to hearth.com you are downloading the data from a PAID for package to your home.  Guess what the other side of the equation is?  Yep - you probably guessed it by now...the owner of hearth.com UPLOADED that data with a PAID FOR connection of the appropriate size to serve that data to you (and the many others that are searching the site).  So WHO isn't paying their fair share?



And if this becomes more widely known, one of the competitors are going to start charging less for better service.

Your claims still seem to rest on some supposed harm that could happen, not what does happen.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Jags said:


> T - you are loosing your debating marbles.  That is exactly what I am saying.  Walmart isn't running their website on a T1 line.  I am sure it is much larger than that. And they are paying for it.  These providers are ALREADY getting payed.  They are trying to find a NEW revenue stream for what they are ALREADY paid for.
> 
> When you go to hearth.com you are downloading the data from a PAID for package to your home.  Guess what the other side of the equation is?  Yep - you probably guessed it by now...the owner of hearth.com UPLOADED that data with a PAID FOR connection of the appropriate size to serve that data to you (and the many others that are searching the site).  So WHO isn't paying their fair share?



I still don't see what you object to. The highest volume of traffic should cost the most and have the fastest speeds providing they are willing to pay for it. As a business scales up the higher use should also pay the higher costs. This only makes sense.


----------



## Swedishchef (May 19, 2014)

I find this is an interesting debate. I have come to the (personal) conclusion that having an internet connection is *almost* a right (every business uses it as a means of communication, etc) and will likely become one within 10 years. And when something slowly converts from from a privilege (that you must pay for) to a right, hot debates come into play.

In Canada a study was published by Netflix last week. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...-rank-of-canadian-web-speeds/article18609068/
I found this interesting: " Netflix has its own content delivery network called Open Connect, which allows ISP customers to access streaming content *more directly rather than being routed through third-party servers*.
*Rogers has recently “virtually doubled” the capacity for its customers to get speedier access to Netflix, said Raj Doshi, senior vice president of products.*
“Our investment timing relative to the testing was probably not coincident, meaning if the tests were done now we would be at a similar level (to Bell) and probably top of the heap,” Doshi said.

Some people felt Rogers was controlling streaming speeds to encourage Netflix users to convert to Rogers' similar "in house" streaming program.

Andrew


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

T - my guess is that you don't even understand the underlying issue to this.  They can change traffic speed based off of TYPE or ORIGIN of traffic.  You may have a 10 meg pipe, but based of of WHAT or WHERE they now have the ability to choke whatever traffic they see fit.



TMonter said:


> And if this becomes more widely known, one of the competitors is going to start charging less for better service.


You don't even have a clue if that will or will not happen.  And nothing says that it will.




TMonter said:


> Your claims still seem to rest on some supposed harm that could happen, not what does happen.


Oh fer cripes sake.
"some supposed harm that could happen"????
No, T.  I am basing it off of what the providers say WILL happen.  And now they have the blessings to do so.


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> That synchronous one megabit kicks the crap out of async multi-megabit.



Exactly the reason that I run bonded T1s.


----------



## Grisu (May 19, 2014)

TMonter said:


> And if this becomes more widely known, one of the competitors are going to start charging less for better service.



Because those competitors found the magic formula how to pay their employees less and get better work out of them? 

Competitors (especially when charging less) will face a lower rate of return and market share than the original ISP. To make the investment worthwhile the original ISP will need to charge a very high rate to make the capital investment worthwhile. The ISPs know that. They will extract just enough to keep their markets unattractive to competitors while starting to deliver content for which they hold the competitive advantage by controlling the infrastructure. And i don't kid myself believing that the higher revenues will be used to bring broadband to more rural places. The investment will go where the money is or being paid out as dividends. 



TMonter said:


> I still don't see what you object to. The highest volume of traffic should cost the most and have the fastest speeds providing they are willing to pay for it. As a business scales up the higher use should also pay the higher costs. This only makes sense.



Quantity yes, speed no. Was that easy enough?


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Because those competitors found the magic formula how to pay their employees less and get better work out of them?
> 
> Competitors (especially when charging less) will face a lower rate of return and market share than the original ISP. To make the investment worthwhile the original ISP will need to charge a very high rate to make the capital investment worthwhile. The ISPs know that. They will extract just enough to keep their markets unattractive to competitors while starting to deliver content for which they hold the competitive advantage by controlling the infrastructure. And i don't kid myself believing that the higher revenues will be used to bring broadband to more rural places. The investment will go where the money is or being paid out as dividends.



You assume that they use the same business model for distribution which is not always the case.

So in other words you agree that market forces do in fact work to control costs.


----------



## TMonter (May 19, 2014)

Jags said:


> T - my guess is that you don't even understand the underlying issue to this.  They can change traffic speed based off of TYPE or ORIGIN of traffic.  You may have a 10 meg pipe, but based of of WHAT or WHERE they now have the ability to choke whatever traffic they see fit.



And you don't think that the government will not do the same thing only in a more insidious manner? At least when an ISP does it they'll get called on it immediately and publicly shamed for it. In fact this has already happened with Comcast and others throttling certain services on their networks casing massive protests online.

The fact is the problem is largely an imagined one.



> You don't even have a clue if that will or will not happen. And nothing says that it will.



The precedent for market forces punishing competitors for missteps is huge. Sony PS4's gaining a large share of the market over xbox one because of game sharing and overall price is a prime example of this. 



> Oh fer cripes sake.
> "some supposed harm that could happen"????
> No, T. I am basing it off of what the providers say WILL happen. And now they have the blessings to do so.



So we're supposed to listen to corporate interests now? You know the same type corporations that have use regulatory capture to beat out their competitors in other markets.


----------



## Jags (May 19, 2014)

We'll the gubment hasn't done it yet and they have had many years of chances.

This isn't a game console it is building infrastructure

The whole idea is to keep the corps from making the calls on traffic.  You are arguing the right points you just don't realize that it is for the wrong side.


----------



## TMonter (May 20, 2014)

Jags said:


> We'll the gubment hasn't done it yet and they have had many years of chances.
> 
> This isn't a game console it is building infrastructure
> 
> The whole idea is to keep the corps from making the calls on traffic.  You are arguing the right points you just don't realize that it is for the wrong side.



The fact is we don't need more regulation of internet. Innovation is high, access is improving, and delivery of content has been increasing. I see people here complaining that rural areas don't have access and we have less accessibility that Europe without considering the logistical problems of distribution.

The principles are the same Jags, whether it's a game console or not. 

I'm not the one on the wrong side of the argument here. There is not a single industry where government regulation has not resulted in some sort of regulatory capture and innovation reduction from power production to telephones and television.

The reality is that like I said your complaints are pretty much an imagined problem because market forces do prevent the companies from making major missteps by limiting access. As I pointed out several companies have tried in the past and experienced huge blow-back from doing so.


----------



## Jags (May 20, 2014)

When they all do it (and they will), it will become the new norm and you will have no option but to accept it.  The fact is, the minimal regulations that the FCC were doing for the net was helping us (the little people).  Your unregulated version is gonna suck in the long term and be a detriment to innovation and the new guy on the block.
Short term you probably won't see much going on.  This will be a slow methodical power grab.  Everything that you always rail against.
I know the three little letters of FCC gives you hives, but they were wearing the white hat in this situation.


----------



## Grisu (May 20, 2014)

TMonter said:


> The fact is we don't need more regulation of internet. Innovation is high, access is improving, and delivery of content has been increasing. I see people here complaining that rural areas don't have access and we have less accessibility that Europe without considering the logistical problems of distribution.



Net neutrality is not "more" regulation. It is maintaining the same regulation we had all along and made the internet such a growth machine over the last two decades. ISPs charging businesses for faster speeds will increase costs for consumers, and offer no incentive for more broadband access in rural areas. It will make it harder for small businesses and internet startups to compete and therefore reduce innovation. 



> I'm not the one on the wrong side of the argument here. There is not a single industry where government regulation has not resulted in some sort of regulatory capture and innovation reduction from power production to telephones and television.



Oh, how I wish that government regulation would have prevented banks from "innovating". 



> The reality is that like I said your complaints are pretty much an imagined problem because market forces do prevent the companies from making major missteps by limiting access. As I pointed out several companies have tried in the past and experienced huge blow-back from doing so.



So people want net neutrality but you say we should get away with it? That argument makes not much sense, does it?


----------



## begreen (May 20, 2014)

My concern is that longer term, as the internet becomes more and more the primary conduit for information, news, commerce, opinion, entertainment, political choice, etc., the opportunity to control the flow and the message by a select few will become a reality. This parallels what happened with the deregulation of television and newspapers. As a result we now  have large segments of our population that have only one broadcaster owning major segments of the media. And it got very political. This was not the broadcast landscape 30 years ago.

A toll based internet can and will get political, eventually increasing the rift between the haves and the have nots. With just a few owning the pipes and bridges into our homes, what is eventually allowed through those pipes will be just as controlled. It is the inherent nature of capitalism to monopolize. And we are witnessing this now in the communications industry. With the ATT&DirectTV and Comcast TimeWarner mergers. Two companies will own 60% of the subscriber base. Think about that.


----------



## TMonter (May 20, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Net neutrality is not "more" regulation. It is maintaining the same regulation we had all along and made the internet such a growth machine over the last two decades. ISPs charging businesses for faster speeds will increase costs for consumers, and offer no incentive for more broadband access in rural areas. It will make it harder for small businesses and internet startups to compete and therefore reduce innovation.



Net Neutrality IS more regulation, no matter which way you want to try and spin it. Again you are making a jump to what might happen, not what does happen.

Actually higher prices always draw more competitors, that is simple economics.



> Oh, how I wish that government regulation would have prevented banks from "innovating".



Except for the fact that government regulations caused the banking crisis in the first place of course.



> So people want net neutrality but you say we should get away with it? That argument makes not much sense, does it?



If there is a demand, eventually someone steps in with a new business model and fills that demand or public opinion forces the change due to the backlash. The entire point is that more regulation and more government meddling is not needed.


----------



## TMonter (May 20, 2014)

begreen said:


> My concern is that longer term, as the internet becomes more and more the primary conduit for information, news, commerce, opinion, entertainment, political choice, etc., the opportunity to control the flow and the message by a select few will become a reality. This parallels what happened with the deregulation of television and newspapers. As a result we now  have large segments of our population that have only one broadcaster owning major segments of the media. And it got very political. This was not the broadcast landscape 30 years ago.
> 
> A toll based internet can and will get political, eventually increasing the rift between the haves and the have nots. With just a few owning the pipes and bridges into our homes, what is eventually allowed through those pipes will be just as controlled. It is the inherent nature of capitalism to monopolize. And we are witnessing this now in the communications industry. With the ATT&DirectTV and Comcast TimeWarner mergers. Two companies will own 60% of the subscriber base. Think about that.



Except of course that the "deregulation" wasn't really deregulation at all.


----------



## Jags (May 21, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Net Neutrality IS more regulation,



Not quite right.  Net Neutrality is the SAME regulation that we have had over the last 20 years.  Show me where this regulation has been a bad thing.


----------



## Grisu (May 21, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Net Neutrality IS more regulation, no matter which way you want to try and spin it. Again you are making a jump to what might happen, not what does happen.
> 
> Actually higher prices always draw more competitors, that is simple economics.



Not sure what there is to discuss. Simple fact: Net neutrality has been in effect for all those years the internet has seen huge growth. The public wants net neutrality and that is the reason we had the government implement it. 

And the higher prices will be paid by the businesses, not by the rural customers who are still waiting for broadband. Hence, ISPs will be eager to serve whichever business can pay more but not expand there network to underserved places. Plus, those "textbook" slogans do not hold in reality: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ca...-faster-inflation-even-competition/2014-05-19
> Average cable TV prices continue to go up faster than the rate of inflation, the FCC said in its latest sampling of rates operators charge for basic cable television service. More surprising, the report found for the third straight year that areas with competition actually saw higher price increases than those without competition. <

Little correction:


> Except for the fact that government *de-*regulations caused the banking crisis in the first place of course.





> If there is a demand, eventually someone steps in with a new business model and fills that demand or public opinion forces the change due to the backlash. The entire point is that more regulation and more government meddling is not needed.



Demand is irrelevant. We have more than 600,000 citizens being homeless and at least 10 times as many empty houses and apartments. Thus, there is demand and there is supply. What's the problem then?


----------



## TMonter (May 22, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Not sure what there is to discuss. Simple fact: Net neutrality has been in effect for all those years the internet has seen huge growth. The public wants net neutrality and that is the reason we had the government implement it.
> 
> Demand is irrelevant. We have more than 600,000 citizens being homeless and at least 10 times as many empty houses and apartments. Thus, there is demand and there is supply. What's the problem then?



We have had net neutrality without government regulation Grisu.

What the public wants is immaterial, that is a classic case of the appeal to popularity fallacy and is not an argument. "the Public" once wanted slavery, does that mean we should go back to slavery?

You're confusing want with economic demand Grisu. Economic demand can only take place if you have productive capacity. Because the homeless don't produce anything they in effect create no demand in economic terms.


----------



## TMonter (May 22, 2014)

Jags said:


> Not quite right.  Net Neutrality is the SAME regulation that we have had over the last 20 years.  Show me where this regulation has been a bad thing.



If Net Neutrality is the same regulation then why does it need new rules? There seems to be a serious flaw with your logic


----------



## BrotherBart (May 22, 2014)

TMonter said:


> If Net Neutrality is the same regulation then why does it need new rules? There seems to be a serious flaw with your logic



No the flaw is yours T. What is proposed is not new rules but a relaxation of the existing rules.


----------



## Jags (May 22, 2014)

TMonter said:


> If Net Neutrality is the same regulation then why does it need new rules? There seems to be a serious flaw with your logic



The current rules in place have been challenged (and they won).  My logic stands.


----------



## Grisu (May 22, 2014)

TMonter said:


> What the public wants is immaterial, that is a classic case of the appeal to popularity fallacy and is not an argument. "the Public" once wanted slavery, does that mean we should go back to slavery?



So people can vote with their money but not through electing a representative who implements their choices? It just shows how you see money and wealth as the dominant (only) organizing principles of a society. And for someone who openly defended the South's right to slavery here, I would be cautious with that comparison. ("false dilemma" fallacy btw.)



> You're confusing want with economic demand Grisu. Economic demand can only take place if you have productive capacity. Because the homeless don't produce anything they in effect create no demand in economic terms.



Nope, you are confusing having wealth with being productive. http://www.amny.com/the-new-homeless-working-but-without-housing-1.7052036 
"More working people, about 44 percent of the homeless nationally have jobs."
Market prices (including wages) are determined by the relative bargaining power of buyer and seller, not by productivity. Again, you are determining someone's importance simply by their monetary wealth.


----------



## TMonter (May 22, 2014)

Grisu said:


> So people can vote with their money but not through electing a representative who implements their choices? It just shows how you see money and wealth as the dominant (only) organizing principles of a society. And for someone who openly defended the South's right to slavery here, I would be cautious with that comparison. ("false dilemma" fallacy btw.)



I didn't defend the south's right to slavery, that is a gross misrepresentation of my viewpoint Grisu, nice try.




> Nope, you are confusing having wealth with being productive. http://www.amny.com/the-new-homeless-working-but-without-housing-1.7052036
> "More working people, about 44 percent of the homeless nationally have jobs."
> Market prices (including wages) are determined by the relative bargaining power of buyer and seller, not by productivity. Again, you are determining someone's importance simply by their monetary wealth.



No. Economically speaking someone's importance is driven by their productivity, which in turn produces their bargaining power. One cannot have bargaining power if one can not produce anything, at least not in a voluntary transaction.

Additionally your article is about specifically New York, not the rest of the country. Years of ridiculous regulations have turned New York into an economic mess.


----------



## TMonter (May 22, 2014)

Jags said:


> The current rules in place have been challenged (and they won).  My logic stands.



No the current rules were not challenged, the FCC overreached outside of their authority and were slapped down.


----------



## Jags (May 22, 2014)

TMonter said:


> No the current rules were not challenged



YES - The standing rules that have been in effect for many years were challenged.  That is the genesis of this. If you wish to twist words, then say it like it is.  Nobody claimed overreach until the greedy corps got involved.  The corps found a loophole and are now trying to exploit it for their (and only their) gain.  Period.


----------



## Grisu (May 22, 2014)

TMonter said:


> I didn't defend the south's right to slavery, that is a gross misrepresentation of my viewpoint Grisu, nice try.



You defended the right of the South to secede because they did not agree with the legislation that abolished slavery. Comes up to the same point.



> No. Economically speaking someone's importance is driven by their productivity, which in turn produces their bargaining power. One cannot have bargaining power if one can not produce anything, at least not in a voluntary transaction.



The guys who pick food from the field and bring it to the grocery store produce something truly valuable to my and your livelihood. Still does not mean they have bargaining power and are therefore paid accordingly.

Your "voluntary" free market always assumes equal bargaining power. Since that is almost never the case, you are holding up a theoretical ideal, not something that is based on reality.



> Additionally your article is about specifically New York, not the rest of the country. Years of ridiculous regulations have turned New York into an economic mess.



Albeit old data but certainly not just true for NY: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ok-post-says-44-percent-homeless-people-are-/
We have a homeless shelter nearby and I see the men and women entering the bus in the morning on their way to work. And yes, from their chats and regularity I know they are going to work.


----------



## jatoxico (May 22, 2014)

How exactly will a change in the law that allows a company to pay a provider for preferential service stimulate innovation? In addition any market forces that previously "regulated" or prevented the choking of service were based on the notion of the ethics of_ equal service_ which will now no longer be in effect. 

I count myself as generally conservative but gov't regulation isn't always bad. Market forces are hardly a guarantee of a positive outcome. Unregulated market forces once did great harm to this country (see 1929) and monopolies of the past did little for innovation or the welfare of Americans who in many cases were sending their kids to work due to the low wages at the time. My mother did not have to work, for most of my adult life my wife did; where are we headed right now?


----------



## TMonter (May 27, 2014)

Grisu said:


> You defended the right of the South to secede because they did not agree with the legislation that abolished slavery. Comes up to the same point.



No, Grisu and that is not why the South Seceded. Nice try. I guess when you can't beat someone's argument the next best thing is to try and classify them as a racist.



> The guys who pick food from the field and bring it to the grocery store produce something truly valuable to my and your livelihood. Still does not mean they have bargaining power and are therefore paid accordingly.
> 
> Your "voluntary" free market always assumes equal bargaining power. Since that is almost never the case, you are holding up a theoretical ideal, not something that is based on reality.



No it does not assume equal bargaining power, again you are making incorrect assumptions. Bargaining power only exists of these is a shortage of labor which in the case of field pickers there really isn't.



> Albeit old data but certainly not just true for NY: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ok-post-says-44-percent-homeless-people-are-/
> We have a homeless shelter nearby and I see the men and women entering the bus in the morning on their way to work. And yes, from their chats and regularity I know they are going to work.



And? It seems to me that almost all of these cases are in densely populated areas with high costs of living and heavy regulation. There seems to be a huge number of holes to your claim even according to your own link.


----------



## TMonter (May 27, 2014)

jatoxico said:


> How exactly will a change in the law that allows a company to pay a provider for preferential service stimulate innovation? In addition any market forces that previously "regulated" or prevented the choking of service were based on the notion of the ethics of_ equal service_ which will now no longer be in effect.
> 
> I count myself as generally conservative but gov't regulation isn't always bad. Market forces are hardly a guarantee of a positive outcome. Unregulated market forces once did great harm to this country (see 1929) and monopolies of the past did little for innovation or the welfare of Americans who in many cases were sending their kids to work due to the low wages at the time. My mother did not have to work, for most of my adult life my wife did; where are we headed right now?



Market forces didn't cause the 1929 crash. perhaps you should recheck your assumptions. Also the "monopolies" of the past drove down the costs of goods and services and greatly increased the standard of living around the world.


----------



## Grisu (May 27, 2014)

TMonter said:


> No, Grisu and that is not why the South Seceded. Nice try. I guess when you can't beat someone's argument the next best thing is to try and classify them as a racist.



I beat your arguments already at multiple occasions; you are just the only one who does not realize it. 


> No it does not assume equal bargaining power, again you are making incorrect assumptions. Bargaining power only exists of these is a shortage of labor which in the case of field pickers there really isn't.



So you admit there is no equal bargaining power which means there is no free market. A market can only be free when both sides have equal ability to walk away from a deal. If one side needs to accept any wage in order to not starve we are not talking about a free market anymore. A person who can let an apartment stay empty for months has a different bargaining power than someone who needs a place to live. 

Anyway, way off from the original topic.


----------



## TMonter (May 28, 2014)

Grisu said:


> I beat your arguments already at multiple occasions; you are just the only one who does not realize it.



Except of course, that you haven't. As I pointed out you basically pulled out a red herring as an argument and then tried to claim I was a racist.



> So you admit there is no equal bargaining power which means there is no free market. A market can only be free when both sides have equal ability to walk away from a deal. If one side needs to accept any wage in order to not starve we are not talking about a free market anymore. A person who can let an apartment stay empty for months has a different bargaining power than someone who needs a place to live.



That isn't what is happening. You are falsely claiming that one party has to accept a wage or starve, when this is quite clearly not the case. There are other options.

Just because there are some people who are unskilled and have less options does not mean a free market does not exist. In reality it is government regulation that has driven out the free market and stifled opportunity and growth.


----------



## begreen (May 28, 2014)

OK kids, another thread derailed. > this is not the ashcan.


----------



## begreen (Jun 3, 2014)

Opening to share this segment.  John Oliver has summed this topic up very well and with a great sense of humor.


----------



## sinnian (Jun 3, 2014)

Joful said:


> This is just capitalism at work, doing what it does best:  natural selection.  You might not like the system, but it is our system, and you do have a right to change your citizenship any time.



Where in the Constitution does it say that the United States economy is and has to be based on capitalism?  It is the system, but it isn't Ours ~ no need to change citizenship ~ just politicians.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Jun 3, 2014)

sinnian said:


> Where in the Constitution does it say that the United States economy is and has to be based on capitalism?  It is the system, but it isn't Ours ~ no need to change citizenship ~ just politicians.



Yes exactly the same north of 49 too btw.


----------



## begreen (Jun 3, 2014)

Back on topic please or the door closes finally.


----------



## Soundchasm (Jun 4, 2014)

I did as John Oliver asked and left them a comments with my honest feelings.  Thank you for that link.


----------

