Rob's House Posted February 26, 2015 Share 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. You need to consider how rapidly the market is growing. That's why they need to enact the rules now because with the increase in access, including wireless internet access, that argument becomes less persuasive every day. 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. Not surprising. I'd thought this but didn't know enough to say for sure, but you can file this away with countless other feel good liberal regulatory schemes designed to keep the big corporations in check and help the "little guy" that gets said little guy out of the way of the corporations so that a few large entities can rule the market free of outside competition. Congratulations liberals. You just made OC right. If you want to get something done (like freeing corporations from outside competition) put liberals in charge of doing the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 This made me chuckle. Verizon mocks the FCC ruling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 This made me chuckle. Verizon mocks the FCC ruling... I guess they didn't bid high enough for Barrys services. I'm guessing they don't get a waiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) This made me chuckle. Verizon mocks the FCC ruling... Sour grapes and more fear mongering. Verizon spent more than $15 million in lobbying efforts to kill net neutrality in 2012 alone. Edited February 27, 2015 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Sour grapes and more fear mongering. Verizon spent more than $15 million in lobbying efforts to kill net neutrality in 2012 alone. Like he said...they simply didn't bid high enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Sour grapes and more fear mongering. Verizon spent more than $15 million in lobbying efforts to kill net neutrality in 2012 alone. That's not what sour grapes means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 That's not what sour grapes means. They didn't get the outcome they wanted and now they're trashing the outcome. Enlighten me. Like he said...they simply didn't bid high enough. Or the will of the people was upheld over that of special interest groups. Either way. You've developed some strong opinions about this, considering you didn't know anything about it until a couple of hours ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Or the will of the people was upheld over that of special interest groups. Either way. You've developed some strong opinions about this, considering you didn't know anything about it until a couple of hours ago. The will of WHAT people? The three who did what Obama told them to do after he received hundreds of millions of dollars from Google and George Soros to make it happen? Where do YOU see the will of the people here? Seriously. Explain that, wouldcha, Skippy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The will of WHAT people? The three who did what Obama told them to do after he received hundreds of millions of dollars from Google and George Soros to make it happen? Where do YOU see the will of the people here? Seriously. Explain that, wouldcha, Skippy? http://thehill.com/policy/technology/230226-poll-voters-support-broad-concept-of-net-neutrality http://time.com/3578255/conservatives-net-neutrality-poll/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/17/349243335/3-7-million-comments-later-heres-where-net-neutrality-stands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 http://thehill.com/policy/technology/230226-poll-voters-support-broad-concept-of-net-neutrality http://time.com/3578255/conservatives-net-neutrality-poll/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/17/349243335/3-7-million-comments-later-heres-where-net-neutrality-stands Holy crap. You have a completely FUBAR'ed definition of "will of the people." Did you even READ what you posted? Seriously? One poll was done by a new "conservative" company --- not even a polling company, and no link to the poll -- that interviewed 1270 people and included this in the story: The poll did not ask participants about specific methods of regulation, like whether the Federal Communications Commission ought to reclassify consumer broadband Internet as a utility under “Title II”—as Obama has called for—or whether it should use “Section 706″ of the Telecommunications Act, another statute relating to broadband infrastructure. The poll, explained Andrew Shore, the executive director of IFBA, as designed to “get to the heart” of net neutrality by asking voters whether they believed that the government should prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from charging Internet content companies for special access to Internet customers. Jeez, that's embarrassing even for you. If this was really about the will of the people, why were requests to post the ruling for 30 days denied? Why was no one allowed to see it in advance? Probably because to guys like you, the will of the people should be the same as the will of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Holy crap. You have a completely FUBAR'ed definition of "will of the people." Did you even READ what you posted? Seriously? One poll was done by a new "conservative" company --- not even a polling company, and no link to the poll -- that interviewed 1270 people and included this in the story: Jeez, that's embarrassing even for you. If this was really about the will of the people, why were requests to post the ruling for 30 days denied? Why was no one allowed to see it in advance? Probably because to guys like you, the will of the people should be the same as the will of the government. The idea that the people have a will for this to happen is ridiculous when they have no possible way of even knowing what is in the law? Common sense should say to the average schmoe out there that if the content was so great they would be releasing details way ahead of time to gain support no? Obviously Barry knows regulations will limit free speech so he's doing what he does. Be a typical marxist rat and jam it through. Also the head FCC guy O'Rielly refused to testify about it is that even legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The idea that the people have a will for this to happen is ridiculous when they have no possible way of even knowing what is in the law? Common sense should say to the average schmoe out there that if the content was so great they would be releasing details way ahead of time to gain support no? Obviously Barry knows regulations will limit free speech so he's doing what he does. Be a typical marxist rat and jam it through. Also the head FCC guy O'Rielly refused to testify about it is that even legal? What are you talking about? I saw a poll by a company that doesn't do polling, of 1,270 people who were asked nothing about the regulations about to be put upon their world, and there was overwhelming support! Plus, there was a review of comments by The Sunlight Foundation, whose stated purpose is to shine a light on the government to enforce transparency, and they say that most of the comments to the FCC were positive. Granted, the comments were a year old and in response to a regulation that no one can read...even to this day...but hey...they were positive, dammit! Will of the people, baby! You cant deny it! (I swear, Progs get played by their own people like a harp from hell.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 They didn't get the outcome they wanted and now they're trashing the outcome. Enlighten me. Or the will of the people was upheld over that of special interest groups. Either way. You've developed some strong opinions about this, considering you didn't know anything about it until a couple of hours ago. The will of the people? 99 out of 100 couldn't explain net neutrality if their lives depended on it, including you. All they heard was that ISPs are monopolies and are therefore bad. We need protection to save our precious cat videos. These regs are as far away from helping the consumer as it gets. Verizon is crying because they're setting up the FCC for the inevitable third straight knockout in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This ad was just on Twitter. Seriously. Is the internet free now? A Small Orange @asmallorange 15m15 minutes ago Excited for a free internet? Celebrate with your own blog! It's easier to do than you think Promoted by A Small Orange Dismiss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Verizon is crying because they're setting up the FCC for the inevitable third straight knockout in court. Not to mention the smaller ISPs still trying establish themselves. You know they've had lawyers working on this for some time now. Google has been laying fiber all over south Austin. As I understand it, ever since their recent foray into building their own network and getting into the ISP business, they've changed their stance on NN and no longer support it like they once did. Edited February 27, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 They didn't get the outcome they wanted and now they're trashing the outcome. Enlighten me. Sour grapes is where you wanted something, didn't get it, and then said it probably sucks anyway. When you didn't want something to begin with, had it forced down your throat, and still don't like it, that's not sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The ISPs are trying to pass the cost along to the content providers who will ultimately have to pass the cost along to the consumers. More specifically the cost required to increase the network's capability to both carry and reliably deliver ever increasing amounts of data requires an investment in expanding ISPs' capabilities to handle the load. That's pretty much expected - the more people use the net, the more the net has to be able to carry. But there is a significant difference in the load induced on the network from one content provider to the next. Sites with static content (like TBD) don't generate much downstream traffic, as opposed to a subscription movie site, which deals in vast amounts of both audio and video, which is a massive amount of data, and can slow the network down. The ISPs are constantly upgrading their networks (I work for one of the major telecom companies, and you should see the equipment we've installed in my facility since 2001 - it's incredible) in order to meet customers' demands. When the ISP has to go above & beyond anticipated growth in their ability to meet customer demands due to the extra burden created by certain content providers, then I believe it's fair to charge those content providers a higher rate for their usage. Using Netflix as an example, the ISP would charge Netflix a higher rate than they would TwoBillsDrive. Any cost that would be passed on to the customer would, as you say, come from Netflix, not from the ISP. But that's only if Netflix doesn't do anything to move the same content in the form of less data, which is a possible option that doesn't seem to come up in the conversation. One of the things that I'm worried about with the FCC insinuating itself into the industry is that they will likely be imposing a similar regulatory structure to the way they regulated telephone service. Both the FCC and the PUC (Public Utilities Commission - there's 54 of them, one in each state, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and one other I can't remember) set pricing for telephone service, the phone companies didn't. Back in those days (and even today whenever dealing with land lines) the telephone company had to apply to both entities to get permission to lower their rates for basic services as well as for the old-fashioned bells & whistles (caller ID, star69, etc). Will our monthly internet access bills start listing the same kind of surcharges that we had on our phone bills (line access fee, etc)? This is the most likely source of any increase to the consumer on the ISP side as far as I can see. Given a few short years and continued non-interference by government entities, any existing problems in data delivery capabilities will have sorted themselves out. I don't see any advantage to federal involvement in this at all. When a company has to seek permission to adjust its pricing, what's driving that company to advance its services and infrastructure? Especially when there's a good chance they will be told that they won't be able to recover those investment costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Take your time then. I'm sure it will be quite illuminating for us simpletons. I wonder if he'll post this first or he'll finally come through with his explanation of why stealing music is ok that he promised a year ago, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Sour grapes and more fear mongering. Verizon spent more than $15 million in lobbying efforts to kill net neutrality in 2012 alone. Can't compete with a 88 year old globalist kooks money bent on throwing the US into chaos. This even dwarfs the 30 million or so he spent on funding the rioting in Ferguson. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/al-sharpton-gets-meeting-president_868395.html Ferguson http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all Sour grapes is where you wanted something, didn't get it, and then said it probably sucks anyway. When you didn't want something to begin with, had it forced down your throat, and still don't like it, that's not sour grapes. No is sure isn't. I akin that more to being raped. Sodomized. But what the hell, some people seem to like that. Edited February 27, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 No is sure isn't. I akin that more to being raped. Sodomized. But what the hell, some people seem to like that. Come to think of it, to use Gene's definition any victim of crime could be said to be whining over sour grapes. Rape victim, not happy about the result, complaining about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts