Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a way the internet has cops, it's the feds, NSA and police. The NSA stores data and if you commit a crime, The police are allowed to look through your digital life whether it is your hard drive or cloud. Me I am fine with it. If you don't make threats our look up nefarious things like pipe bomb creation or how to start a meth lab. If you are dumb enough to search that, you deserve what you get. I don't see much more truly happening on the net to worry about besides cyber bullying which no-one should really do.
I continue to find myself amazed that you and I agree on this issue. As you know, I am a "right winger"
Where I disagree with my right wing brethren is that they mistakenly frame this issue as one of guuuuvment versus the free market. It is not. It is ALL about the monopolistic power that ISPs have over their customers.
Let's hear it for the free market. Too bad there isnt one, in the ISP business, at least.
Thank you for that well reasoned comment. This is one of those issues that isn't Democrat vs. Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative, but yet so many here are reflexively anti-net neutrality because... well, heck if I know.
It would be great if we had a free market for ISP's in the US, but short of nationalizing the infrastructure, that ship sailed back in 1934. The telecoms are media conglomerates, that control infrastructure like monopolistic utilities, but haven't been treated as such. There's a reason why cities don;t have multiple water companies, power companies, DOT's, and even telecom companies. But there's no reason the telecoms should be excluded from the consumer protections forced on all of the other big infrastructure utilities.
Attitudes like these are the exact reason why the US is lagging behind so many nations technologically, and in other ways. Oh it's good enough, I'm happy with what I have. It's not all about you. Just because you're happy with your second-rate service doesn't mean the rest of us are. You have no idea how much Americans get hosed by their ISP and mobile provider compared to the rest of the developed world, because you've never been out of the US or have bothered to do any research into what other countries are like . It's either that, or you're a lobbyist on the ISP side. Not unheard of, right before the ruling came, technology magazines and websites have been getting trolled by the anti-net neutrality online army, no doubt most of them were being paid to spread propaganda
This. It seems people are more prone to provincialism on the right than the left for whatever reason. Our speeds are pretty mediocre globally.
This. It seems people are more prone to provincialism on the right than the left for whatever reason. Our speeds are pretty mediocre globally.
Well, except those on the left that insist the ACA has lowered the cost of health insurance because it did for them, despite the clear evidence that it's much more costly for most.
Well, except those on the left that insist the ACA has lowered the cost of health insurance because it did for them, despite the clear evidence that it's much more costly for most.
The overall cost of health care is up a small amount. That would indicate overall the individual cost of health care on average is up a small amount. That is much better than say the average of the prior decade.
kSo no the cost isw not down...but it is increasing much less than we would expect extrapolating the past.
The overall cost of health care is up a small amount. That would indicate overall the individual cost of health care on average is up a small amount. That is much better than say the average of the prior decade.
kSo no the cost isw not down...but it is increasing much less than we would expect extrapolating the past.
It's like Obama reigning in the debt. The debt is still growing BUT the rate of growth is much slower than it was. Healthcare costs are still increasing but not as drastic as it use to be as you correctly stated.
How did we even get on this topic, I thought this was about Net Neutrality not healthcare...
It was ultimately coming anyway. First it was the SOP Act, then the PIP Act, then the CISP Act (aka SOP part II), not to mention we have the TPP and the TPIP in the form of that proverbial "other shoe"....
What people fail to realize is that because this 300+ paged bill (which most haven't read but are cheering in droves for it) the internet has been "legally" declared a "public utility" and is now subjected to bureaucratic and government regulation.
Please tell me, what, on this big beautiful blue marble floating in space, has goverment EVER regulated efficiently and fairly?
Pushers for this bill propagate that this will prevent big telecommunications/corporations from stifling competition with their size and financial clout. But what's to stop said big corporations from buying their former employees into positions of political power and lobbying for their wishes (kinda like they have been doing already)?
Net Neutrality sets out to fix a problem that doesn't even exist. Unless the problem is bureaucratic dysfunction which in this case the internet will subjected to said dysfunction ad infinitum.
It was ultimately coming anyway. First it was the SOP Act, then the PIP Act, then the CISP Act (aka SOP part II), not to mention we have the TPP and the TPIP in the form of that proverbial "other shoe"....
What people fail to realize is that because this 300+ paged bill (which most haven't read but are cheering in droves for it) the internet has been "legally" declared a "public utility" and is now subjected to bureaucratic and government regulation.
Please tell me, what, on this big beautiful blue marble floating in space, has goverment EVER regulated efficiently and fairly?
Pushers for this bill propagate that this will prevent big telecommunications/corporations from stifling competition with their size and financial clout. But what's to stop said big corporations from buying their former employees into positions of political power and lobbying for their wishes (kinda like they have been doing already)?
Net Neutrality sets out to fix a problem that doesn't even exist. Unless the problem is bureaucratic dysfunction which in this case the internet will subjected to said dysfunction ad infinitum.
R.I.P. Internet (AWK)
~1960-2/26/2015
We knew ye well.
Your wage?
The government protects your job from foreigners. lol
It was ultimately coming anyway. First it was the SOP Act, then the PIP Act, then the CISP Act (aka SOP part II), not to mention we have the TPP and the TPIP in the form of that proverbial "other shoe"....
What people fail to realize is that because this 300+ paged bill (which most haven't read but are cheering in droves for it) the internet has been "legally" declared a "public utility" and is now subjected to bureaucratic and government regulation.
Please tell me, what, on this big beautiful blue marble floating in space, has goverment EVER regulated efficiently and fairly?
Pushers for this bill propagate that this will prevent big telecommunications/corporations from stifling competition with their size and financial clout. But what's to stop said big corporations from buying their former employees into positions of political power and lobbying for their wishes (kinda like they have been doing already)?
Net Neutrality sets out to fix a problem that doesn't even exist. Unless the problem is bureaucratic dysfunction which in this case the internet will subjected to said dysfunction ad infinitum.
R.I.P. Internet (AWK)
~1960-2/26/2015
We knew ye well.
But consider the alternative, big businesses control bandwidth and we could see them price businesses even high volume small businesses whatever they want. I'm fine with limited freedom for protection from monopolistic tactics. Let's remember, what Comcast did was monopolistic activities and monopolies are bad for markets. What's worse, allowing big businesses to become monopolies or the internet to POSSIBLY be censored (which in some cases such as terms of service) already is.
02-27-2015, 11:38 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2201987
It was ultimately coming anyway. First it was the SOP Act, then the PIP Act, then the CISP Act (aka SOP part II), not to mention we have the TPP and the TPIP in the form of that proverbial "other shoe"....
What people fail to realize is that because this 300+ paged bill (which most haven't read but are cheering in droves for it) the internet has been "legally" declared a "public utility" and is now subjected to bureaucratic and government regulation.
Consider, for a moment, the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They're a rather well known non-profit, especially among the tech literate. They stood against SOPA, PIPA, TPP, warrantless spying, and all the nasty things government tries to come up with to make our electronic lives worse.
Their take on net neutrality? Well...this (Dear FCC: Thanks for Listening to the Internet Community) is the lead story on their front page.
Quote:
Please tell me, what, on this big beautiful blue marble floating in space, has goverment EVER regulated efficiently and fairly?
Telephone monopolies. RF spectrum. To name just two of the bigger things the FCC has been involved with.
Quote:
Pushers for this bill propagate that this will prevent big telecommunications/corporations from stifling competition with their size and financial clout. But what's to stop said big corporations from buying their former employees into positions of political power and lobbying for their wishes (kinda like they have been doing already)?
You realize those people are already there, right? The reason this vote was split is because one of the commissioners is a Republican shill and another is a guy who waltzed in from Verizon. Fortunately the corporate shills don't currently have enough votes to force their agenda. And how does this regulation (not a bill, learn the difference) make it more likely for corporations to push through their agenda? It's not as if the FCC previously had no regulatory authority, or as though the FCC had no corporate influence beforehand.
What exactly is your point with this statement? We shouldn't have any regulation because at some point business might get enough power to change the regulations in such a way that they'd be allowed to do what they would've done in the absence of regulation? That makes no sense. It's the "don't try because you might fail" argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. It's either that, or you're a lobbyist on the ISP side. Not unheard of, right before the ruling came, technology magazines and websites have been getting trolled by the anti-net neutrality online army, no doubt most of them were being paid to spread propaganda
