Net Neutrality 2017

[Popeman38]

15 minutes ago, Springfield said:

This is on the telecom companies.  They were given non-compete agreements on the basis that they were to meet these needs.  Decades ago.  They are the ones who have promised an infrastructure progression but failed to deliver.

 

Same ones who needed so deeply to repeal NN so that they could progress infrastructure.

You're simplifying it a bit too much. For folks who live in the sticks, there is no incentive for a company to run miles of fiber/ether for a couple subscribers. You won't make up the capital costs.

 

AT&T was a government-granted monopoly for phone service, and they recouped their money by being the only option for phone and extremely healthy corporate welfare.

 

For large cities, yes the telcos have failed.  And yes, there is a marked lack of competition for high-speed internet (I built my house and my options were FiOS and Xfinity<-- worst rebrand in corporate history).  But some of that is on the localities - you know how expensive and difficult it is to get anything done in NYC?  Wanna get 1G speeds to NYC?  It is going to cost tens of millions dollars, not counting the time.

 

There are 2 sides to every coin. There are some valid concerns with how companies will abuse their newly rediscovered "freedom" and there are some valid counter arguments to why the rules weren't great.  It is rarely as one sided as it is presented.

[Zguy28]

6 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

That was sort of what I was thinking, that if Net Neutrality was going to be killed then it would be absolutely essential to break up the ISP monopoly and go back to the days where you could choose between a minimum of 20 ISPs in your local area who would be constantly competing with each other for customers.  Without that 2nd move....killing net neutrality seems like purely a cash grab by ISPs.

Hence killing it is not good, since you will never have 20 ISP's competing locally. You'd have to have gov't owned networks similar to roads.

[Elessar78]

whats the hate for John Feinstein?

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

9 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

whats the hate for John Feinstein?

 

 

Arrogant douche.  

 

Not saying he's a bad writer, he's a great one.  He's just a pompous douche.

[Bang]

1 hour ago, Zguy28 said:

Hence killing it is not good, since you will never have 20 ISP's competing locally. You'd have to have gov't owned networks similar to roads.

in 1999 the state of Maryland deregulated power companies because the power companies lobbied the general assembly to do so.
They called it the "Consumer Choice and Competition Act"

Basically it gave any competitors 7 years to build new powerhouses and string new lines, at which time in 2007 everything would be deregulated and open competition would set prices.

well, what the **** do you know, nobody built a new system due to how much it would cost and 7 years not being enough time to create the structure needed to sustain a new power grid. Powerhouses, rail lines to supply fuel to generate.. hydroelectric systems,, lines and substations... it's impossible to build it within the time allowed. 
 

In 2007 the average Marylander saw a 73% increase in electric bills. Z, you and i both use SMECO, and ours went up over 70%,, i remember it like it was yesterday.. unreal. (and we'r a co-op that supposedly buys electricity from the most cost effective source. Remember back in the day sometimes you'd actually get a check from them because you didn't use as much as was budgeted for the year? I haven't seen one since.)

Maryland now has the 4th highest residential electricity rates in the US.

 

And THAT was signed on by a democrat governor, Parris Glendenning who's entire tenure saw him do two things. Raise the cost of basic necessities and taxes on ALL marylanders, and dump his wife and run off with his secretary. 

 

Point is,, big business will screw you if given the power to do so, without exception. This is what happens when the government steps in and mandates a monopoly, regardless of how it was couched in their stupid "competition" language. 

 

A question for those smarter than me,, when Reagan broke up the phone company monopoly, the ability to open competition was that the already-in-place infrastructure was to be referred to as a "common carrier", which could be used by any of the competitors to carry their signal.

What is the difference?

 

~Bang

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bang

[Springfield]

2 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

You're simplifying it a bit too much. For folks who live in the sticks, there is no incentive for a company to run miles of fiber/ether for a couple subscribers. You won't make up the capital costs.

 

AT&T was a government-granted monopoly for phone service, and they recouped their money by being the only option for phone and extremely healthy corporate welfare.

 

For large cities, yes the telcos have failed.  And yes, there is a marked lack of competition for high-speed internet (I built my house and my options were FiOS and Xfinity<-- worst rebrand in corporate history).  But some of that is on the localities - you know how expensive and difficult it is to get anything done in NYC?  Wanna get 1G speeds to NYC?  It is going to cost tens of millions dollars, not counting the time.

 

There are 2 sides to every coin. There are some valid concerns with how companies will abuse their newly rediscovered "freedom" and there are some valid counter arguments to why the rules weren't great.  It is rarely as one sided as it is presented.

 

I don’t disagree with any of this.  I do believe that unless there is competition that the ISP’s won’t use their newfound freedom in a benevolent manner.  They haven’t in the past, so I don’t think they will in the future.  The evidence is overwhelming.

 

Time will tell.

[visionary]

 

[Springfield]

Like Pai gives a ****.  He is an internet troll to the bone.  I bet he’s a 4chan bro.

[tshile]

14 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Dip**** politician: this issue just started 3 years ago

[Arsenic]

 

 

What does the perfect future look like?

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

37 minutes ago, tshile said:

Dip**** politician: this issue just started 3 years ago

It's the talking point for partisan right wingers. Don Jr using the same thing. They are trying to make it a partisan issue among the base.

[Gamebreaker]

23 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

One of the FCC guys (not POS, um, Pai)  that voted yes was on an NPR show a week or two ago. The interviewer was definitely pro-net neutrality.

 

If it's the same interview I saw, where the female attorney was also being interviewed and she ripped him a new one, he definitely seemed anti-net neutrality to me. 

[Gamebreaker]

13 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

I love how he calls him Obama's FCC Chairman, when he was the one who appointed him. Obama just put him on the committee. 

[Bang]

Seriously getting about sick of republican senators and presidents straight up insulting American citizens.

 

Trump i can forgive somewhat because we knew what he is prior and we knew he had no respect for anything but himself. we know he's an uncouth boor. We know he's a childish narcissist from the outset.

Ted Cruz,, this is an American senator who has been seated for nearly 15 years using the term "snowflake' to describe concerned constituents. I don't care who he is or which party he's in, this behavior is beneath the dignity of his office and standing as a US Senator. 

Unprofessional & uncouth to say the least. Our politicians take their behavioral cues from online troll bros. 

****ing embarrassing.

 

But a-ok to the average GOPer. Encouraged and rewarded for such behavior.

You ****ing idiots.

 

~Bang

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bang

[Hersh]

17 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

If it's the same interview I saw, where the female attorney was also being interviewed and she ripped him a new one, he definitely seemed anti-net neutrality to me. 

 

This interview was on the radio, the program 1A, and there was a women interviewed after him and she did rip apart all the FCC member's arguments with a bunch of facts. 

[Gamebreaker]

15 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

Ted Cruz,, this is an American senator who has been seated for nearly 15 years using the term "snowflake' to describe concerned constituents.

Unprofessional & uncouth to say the least. Our politicians take their behavioral cues from online troll bros. 

****ing embarrassing.

 

That was Cruz's way of thanking them for the $322k contribution to his "campaign". 

[Destino]

52 minutes ago, Bang said:

Seriously getting about sick of republican senators and presidents straight up insulting American citizens.

 

Unprofessional & uncouth to say the least. Our politicians take their behavioral cues from online troll bros. 

****ing embarrassing.

I agree with this.  It's bad enough that they talk to the public like they're speaking to simple children.  Now it's become common place to be intentionally juvenile and dismissive.  I can appreciate sarcasm and petty insults as much as anyone, but that's not an acceptable tone for elected officials to take when addressing public concern on a legitimate issue.  

 

These elected leaders should be opposing the FCC's move to end net neutrality.  Their jobs are to represent the public, and most people of both parties favor net neutrality.  There aren't a lot of issues with this level of bipartisan support.  Instead of doing their jobs, they're openly mocking the majority of the general public.  

[LD0506]

1 hour ago, Arsenic said:

 

 

What does the perfect future look like?

 

 

 

Two days after the Purge..........

[visionary]

 

[Springfield]

Here’s a website where you can search to see if you or someone you know had their likeness used fraudulently.

 

My name (not common) was used but a different address, an address that does not exist.

[tshile]

Just got home

 

Internet doesn't seem any faster

11 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Here’s a website where you can search to see if you or someone you know had their likeness used fraudulently.

 

My name (not common) was used but a different address, an address that does not exist.

Mine was used in the letter urging them not to repeal it

 

Which is correct

[Malapropismic Depository]

IMO, you can at least improve your experience of net neutrality simply by changing which search engine you use.

[Spaceman Spiff]

3 hours ago, Springfield said:

Here’s a website where you can search to see if you or someone you know had their likeness used fraudulently.

 

My name (not common) was used but a different address, an address that does not exist.

 

My name was used (not that common, but there's a few of us) in Brooklyn, far from the DMV.  Doubt it was real, no one really writes that way.

 

My Dad's was used, back in August.  I showed it to him and he said "I didn't even know what net neutrality was back in August!"

 

Someone used my Aunt's, too.  

 

Unbelievable.  Yet, totally believable.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Spaceman Spiff

[PokerPacker]

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Unbelievable.  Yet, totally believable.

We seem to have reached an age in politics where they only bother lying to us out of a sense of tradition.  We know they're lying.  They know we know they're lying.  And we both know they'll just do whatever the **** they want anyways.

[Spaceman Spiff]

6 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

We seem to have reached an age in politics where they only bother lying to us out of a sense of tradition.  We know they're lying.  They know we know they're lying.  And we both know they'll just do whatever the **** they want anyways.

 

Yup.  They're pieces of ****.