Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 The interesting thing about this thread (which is crystal clear to anyone like myself who is trying to understand this ruling) is that the people who are against it have relatively clear and concise arguments for their position and those who are not have no idea what they're talking about, but feel the need to defend it for some unknown reason. Oh really? What's the Infowars take on this, oh wise guru? The world waits with bated breath for Alex Jones' your opinion on this miscarriage of justice...
IDBillzFan Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Oh really? What's the Infowars take on this, oh wise guru? The world waits with bated breath for Alex Jones' your opinion on this miscarriage of justice... You'll notice, Skippy, that I haven't really chimed in on this topic. That's because I'm not 100% sure of everything that is going on, and to respond with an authoritative opinion on something I don't fully understand would make me look like...well...like pretty much everything you've posted in this thread.
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 You'll notice, Skippy, that I haven't really chimed in on this topic. That's because I'm not 100% sure of everything that is going on, and to respond with an authoritative opinion on something I don't fully understand would make me look like...well...like pretty much everything you've posted in this thread. That's why I'm waiting for your whack job daily reading list to catch up with this topic so you can be informed of your opinion. Like I said, waiting with bated breath here! Like you said, you don't know what the !@#$ is going on, but you've no doubt that whatever my opinion is is wrong.
IDBillzFan Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 That's why I'm waiting for your whack job daily reading list to catch up with this topic so you can be informed of your opinion. Like I said, waiting with bated breath here! I'm thinking I'll be done with my daily whack job reading when you get done with your daily postings.
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 That's why I'm waiting for your whack job daily reading list to catch up with this topic so you can be informed of your opinion. Like I said, waiting with bated breath here! Like you said, you don't know what the !@#$ is going on, but you've no doubt that whatever my opinion is is wrong. That's because your opinion is wrong, as you continue to use the wrong analogies and still can't separate the effect of the law on the wholesale distribution side of the Internet. That's why it's a hoax. People think that the regulations will protect them from the evil ISP monopolists (even though 90%+ of the country has a choice of at least two broadband providers), while the new regs will provide a temporary reprieve for the small start ups, until they will be forced to pay their full bore for distributing their crappy wares. The morons don't know well enough to let a sleeping bear lie. They benefit from the arcane rules of the internet where they get a free ride to their customers. If these stupid regs stand, then I can easily see the large ISPs shutting down their long haul internet pipes, and telling all the websites to deliver the traffic to the individual POPs/nodes, and the free ride will quickly end.
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Posted February 26, 2015 Everything I've read about Net Neutrality seems like it's a no brainer protection from local monopolies for consumers. Monopolies? Plural? Really?
Dorkington Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Monopolies? Plural? Really? What would you call a monopoly in a specific region, and there being many regions in the country? I don't consider "provider choice" to be "just move to a different state". Edited February 26, 2015 by Dorkington
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 That's because your opinion is wrong, as you continue to use the wrong analogies and still can't separate the effect of the law on the wholesale distribution side of the Internet. That's why it's a hoax. People think that the regulations will protect them from the evil ISP monopolists (even though 90%+ of the country has a choice of at least two broadband providers), while the new regs will provide a temporary reprieve for the small start ups, until they will be forced to pay their full bore for distributing their crappy wares. The morons don't know well enough to let a sleeping bear lie. They benefit from the arcane rules of the internet where they get a free ride to their customers. If these stupid regs stand, then I can easily see the large ISPs shutting down their long haul internet pipes, and telling all the websites to deliver the traffic to the individual POPs/nodes, and the free ride will quickly end. Your opinion of doom is wrong. But that's just my opinion. I'm looking for a response in our conversation about analogies, which was a lot more interesting to me than the 'your opinion is wrong' and 'your analogies are wrong'. That type of argument is just wrong. What would you call a monopoly in a specific region, and there being many regions in the country? I don't consider "provider choice" to be "just move to a different state". Commie!
Dorkington Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Regarding choice, I'd like to see more about the 90% stat. I have a suspicion it's one cable provider, and one dsl provider. In some areas, there's fiber, so hopefully that continues to expand as competition. For example, I can get Comcast cable, or Verizon DSL, that's it. In the ideal world of competition, I'd love to be able to choose from Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Cablevision, etc. And also have access to Verizon and Google fiber. But anti competitive measures on the local level keep that from happening.
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 I'm thinking I'll be done with my daily whack job reading when you get done with your daily postings. That was actually kind of funny. I'm pleasantly surprised!
PTS Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-plan-google-115502.html We can't see what's in the bill. Congress can't see what's in the bill. Yet, Google, a big corporation, is allowed to see it and tweak it. Are you freaking kidding me? Seriously America, wake the hell up. I've said all along that this net neutrality crap will only benefit the big corporations. It will do the opposite of what they are saying it will do.
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Posted February 26, 2015 What would you call a monopoly in a specific region, and there being many regions in the country? I don't consider "provider choice" to be "just move to a different state". Most areas of the US with any significant population at all has cable TV, land lines, and wireless 4G/4GLTE, all of which provide access.
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Most areas of the US with any significant population at all has cable TV, land lines, and wireless 4G/4GLTE, all of which provide access. You're equating the three?
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Posted February 26, 2015 You're equating the three? They're not all the same, but they're all forms of access. If your beef is that one form of access is better than another, then no regulation will make any of these technologies any better. No regulation is going to introduce new ISPs in your area to give you more choice. That happens in the market, not by federal proclamation.
IDBillzFan Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-net-neutrality-plan-google-115502.html We can't see what's in the bill. Congress can't see what's in the bill. Yet, Google, a big corporation, is allowed to see it and tweak it. Are you freaking kidding me? Seriously America, wake the hell up. I've said all along that this net neutrality crap will only benefit the big corporations. It will do the opposite of what they are saying it will do. Again...Barry Obama and the highest bidder is all that matters.Google likely saw Soros give Barry $200M for this ruling, and felt the need to up their number to have a say.
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 They're not all the same, but they're all forms of access. If your beef is that one form of access is better than another, then no regulation will make any of these technologies any better. No regulation is going to introduce new ISPs in your area to give you more choice. That happens in the market, not by federal proclamation. I have exactly as many broadband options via the free market as I had 15+ years ago.
GG Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Your opinion of doom is wrong. But that's just my opinion. I'm looking for a response in our conversation about analogies, which was a lot more interesting to me than the 'your opinion is wrong' and 'your analogies are wrong'. That type of argument is just wrong. Commie! What good is a conversation when the analogies are wrong? Very few people understand the workings of the internet backbone, yet that's precisely where the regs are targeted. Virtually nobody knows that the industry has been operating well under loose set of net neutrality guidelines proposed by Kevin Martin in 2009. All the noise you've been hearing is companies complaining about commercial contracts and hoping the regulators intervene on their behalf. What they forget is that the laws rarely turn out in their favor in the long run. My opinion of doom isn't wrong, because the practical effect of all the net neutrality noise on consumers has been the elimination of all you can eat internet and either higher costs of bandwidth or degradation of service for stuff that most people will want. Idiots. I have exactly as many broadband options via the free market as I had 15+ years ago. Baloney.
Greg F Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 I would suggest those that think this ill named 'net neutrality' is a good thing you need to read this: http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem And this: http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/25/fccs-ajit-pai-on-net-neutrality-a-soluti/1 If the classification of ISP's to Title II telecommunications services is allowed to stand I know of one, maybe two, small ISP's in my area that will be put out of business. There is no way these small ISP's will be able to afford to pay for the regulatory reporting and compliance requirements for being a Title II telecommunications service.
Dante Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) I'm thinking I'll be done with my daily whack job reading when you get done with your daily postings. It's really interesting what qualifies as "whack job" these days. So if I understand correctly, if you are for individual liberty personal accountability and self determination. Private property rights. The rule of law and the civil society. Separation of powers and the concept of a limited federal government you are the crazy radical like all the founding fathers? On the other hand, if you are like Gene the dancing machine, you believe in the cult of personality Obama and his socialist agenda which history has proven over and over again is unworkable, you are the enlightened one. Funny world we are in. So here it comes. The real reason for this bill marketed as net neutrality and not what the real goal is, a state run media. They plugged the last leak of truth. Hillary gives a not so subtle clue of what this dictatorship is up to. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/25/hillary-clinton-blames-different-media-for-dividing-country/ Oh and here's Hillary saying that this gets the governments foot in the door. Well if this is just the foot what will the entire body do? http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-calls-regulating-internet-its-foot-door_866080.html What a shrew she is. Pretty silent for the most part lately even with all the crap thats going on but comes out of her cave to cackle on about the internet. Edited February 26, 2015 by Dante
Azalin Posted February 26, 2015 Author Posted February 26, 2015 I have exactly as many broadband options via the free market as I had 15+ years ago. If that is indeed the case, then what makes you think that Net Neutrality will provide you any new ones?
Recommended Posts