I mean come on this is cut and dry here people. There is no reason to vote no against it.
I am absolutely against Net Neutrality, I will vote against it, and any arguments you may have in support of it are without merit.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't get the issue here either, but then again, I don't follow it closely. Isn't net neutrality the equivalent of requiring that, if you are on T-Mobile and I'm on AT&T, I can still call you (or, more importantly, sext you)?
I suppose the devil's in the details - there are lots of ways to do it wrong, but it seems like it could also be done right. Is there some other element I'm missing, or is this just a "regulation is always bad" type argument?
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
More regulation = lower standard of living
Normally, I would be inclined to agree with that statement - but not in this case.
This proposal is not more regulation. It's regulation from a different source.
Right now, the internet is regulated by the internet providers. This proposal changes the regulation over to the US Government who would, theoretically, make sure consumers are treated fairly by the current internet providers. This would provide consequences to internet providers if they gouge or discriminate against any of their customers, and makes sure everyone has equal access to the entire internet, regardless of the consumer's choice of provider.
I, like Crimson Jester, think this is a good thing.
Yeah. Going forward, the reality is that the Internet will be controlled -- either by ISPs who are paid in advertising revenue and usage fees for their own stuff, and who are therefore in something of a very distinct position of conflict of interest -- or by the federal government, which is of course often in conflict with everyone's interest. The difference between them is that the government (a) is far too distant, large, and bloated to micro-regulate the way an ISP easily can, and (b) can be voted out every 4 years.
Either way, it sucks. But we're being forced to choose one or the other -- "no regulation" isn't an option. So what do we pick? Looking for minimal regulation, I'd personally rather go with the org that's too busy and too clueless to do a full job of it.
However, it has become so popular to chant "government bad... big business good... government bad... big business good..." that our net usage will be soon be totally hostage to propriatery ISP interests, I predict. "Paizo neglected to pay the $1M monthly access fee to AT&T, and can therefore no longer be accessed by AT&T customers" is the type of outcome that's likely under that scenario.
|
This proposal changes the regulation over to the US Government.......
See, this - things like this always remind me of a bumper sticker my co-worker had.....
"Government Motto: If it ain't broke, fix it until it is!"
Being as I work for the gov't, I can say with absolute truth that I have seen this happen on a disturbingly regular basis.
This proposal changes the regulation over to the US Government.......See, this - things like this always remind me of a bumper sticker my co-worker had.....
"Government Motto: If it ain't broke, fix it until it is!"
Being as I work for the gov't, I can say with absolute truth that I have seen this happen on a disturbingly regular basis.
+1
Hmmm. No doubt this will fall out along the typical idealogical lines. Personally, between the folly of investing in duplicate infrastructure and the lack of information (and consumer comprehension), I'd rather see net neutrality become the law of the land.
However, someone has to pay for all that infrastructure, and I think your typical internet start up is guilty of some serious cost externalizing. Put another way: The current situation seems to breed exactly the sort of confused pricing signals that prevent a market from operating efficiently. Steaming company S pays a hefty fee to ISP I, and then must raises rates on consumer C. Consequently, the true cost of bandwidth is invisibile to consumer C, who cannot then make rational economic decisions. We either need to fix the price signals (not sure how to do this in practice), or regulate (net neutrality -- which has problems of its own). In short, pricing ambiguity == bad, and something is going to need to give if we're going to get the infrastructure we need.
Either way, I don't think the issue is quite the lynchpin of civilization some people seem to think it is. :)
To complicate the issues, the Opt-Out Plan linky could greatly impact the revenue ISPs receive from advertisers.
Net Neutrality: A Brief Primer (Reason)
For a site called "Reason," their house analyst (Steve Titch) sure does rely awfully heavily on hyperbole and lack of data in his "analyses"... I'm not saying he's all wrong on every point, but he sure goes to a lot of effort to make sure he's preaching strictly to the choir, and that no one who doesn't already agree with him will pay him any attention (e.g., "The network neutrality issue has dwindled to a political agenda supported by a handful of vocal advocates at Moveon.org and Freepress.org" -- wow! Really? Google belongs to MoveOn? Also, I never read either site, but evidently I'm part of their cabal somehow...).
Net Neutrality: A Brief Primer (Reason)For a site called "Reason," their house analyst (Steve Titch) sure does rely awfully heavily on hyperbole and lack of data in his "analyses"... I'm not saying he's all wrong on every point, but he sure goes to a lot of effort to make sure he's preaching strictly to the choir, and that no one who doesn't already agree with him will pay him any attention (e.g., "The network neutrality issue has dwindled to a political agenda supported by a handful of vocal advocates at Moveon.org and Freepress.org" -- wow! Really? Google belongs to MoveOn? Also, I never read either site, but evidently I'm part of their cabal somehow...).
The link is more of a synopsis or intro than an analysis, and it's from '09. IIRC Google changed their position on net neutrality some time ago and stopped supporting it.
I see my ignorance was economically efficient. I'll clock in when this actually affects me. Sounds a lot like the usual game of two sets of large companies shadow-boxing through their political party proxy de jure.
For the most part, I believe it is...though I think this is one of those things that if it does affect you, you may not know about it -- at least not right away. If, say, Netflix raises its streaming prices, you may have no way of knowing whether your ISP was involved.
But I also don't see this as a crumbling pillar of civilization or anything.
The link is more of a synopsis or intro than an analysis...
Right; after reading it, I clicked on THEIR link that said, "see our super-duper insightful analysis here." I usually try to take the stuff people send seriously enough to follow it a bit.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For the most part, I believe it is...though I think this is one of those things that if it does affect you, you may not know about it -- at least not right away. If, say, Netflix raises its streaming prices, you may have no way of knowing whether your ISP was involved.But I also don't see this as a crumbling pillar of civilization or anything.
As far as I can tell, every provider of internet and wireless connections is a collection of incompetent feces eating morons who should hang their heads in collective shame. They already charge too much and provide poor service. I've attempted to change providers in the hopes that such poor service was unique, and that didn't work. Given the gross nature of their incompetence, I believe that their service will continue to get worse, I will continue to be charged more for that shitty service, and there isn't a damn thing that god, government, or the free market can (or will) do about it.
With all that in mind, I could honestly not care less which moron finally determines how often I receive the precious internets and how much I pay for them. I can't imagine a scenario in which I benefit. Either the government doesn't regulate, and those who control the pipes continue to operate poorly, or the government does regulate, and those who control the pipes continue to operate poorly and probably charge me a fee for doing so.
Wait...maybe I don't like the second option after all.
Anyway, if there were a bill in Congress to issue every Time Warner cable customer their own steel-toed boot and the address to the CEO's house, I could support that.
|
Putting the internet in the hands of the government opens the web up to partisan shenanigans (like the so called "Fairness Doctrine", the only purpose of which was eliminating right wing talk radio - broadcast and print media already lean one direction for the most part, having radio not lean the same way is poison to certain politicians.
I don't want whomever happens to be stronger in Congress at any particular time to have anything to do with enforcing anything on the 'net. I don't trust the lying cheating criminal bastards to be objective about anything, on either side of the aisle.
Screw that, let money talk.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Putting the internet in the hands of the government opens the web up to partisan shenanigans (like the so called "Fairness Doctrine", the only purpose of which was eliminating right wing talk radio - broadcast and print media already lean one direction for the most part, having radio not lean the same way is poison to certain politicians.
They say to never ask a question to which you don't know the answer, but, has anyone ever actually suggested the Fairness Doctrine be put into place? I thought that was just a self serving strawman for the masturbatory deliverance of righteous anger. And, by anyone, I mean anyone who's real, not a person paid to look like a strawman and take extreme positions to justify said anger.
|
|
They say to never ask a question to which you don't know the answer, but, has anyone ever actually suggested the Fairness Doctrine be put into place? I thought that was just a self serving strawman for the masturbatory deliverance of righteous anger. And, by anyone, I mean anyone who's real, not a person paid to look like a strawman and take extreme positions to justify said anger.Putting the internet in the hands of the government opens the web up to partisan shenanigans (like the so called "Fairness Doctrine", the only purpose of which was eliminating right wing talk radio - broadcast and print media already lean one direction for the most part, having radio not lean the same way is poison to certain politicians.
It was the law of the FCC regulated land until 1987, when they abolished it. Dems in congress have been trying to get it passed as enforceable law ever since. No straw man, it was a real thing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've yet to see anything even remotely substantive suggesting it be (re)introduced, and I even conducted exhausting research through using Wikipedia, reading almost a half dozen one off quotes (which were obviously cherry picked by a partisan editor to factually, if not contextually, make that point) about the topic before boredom overcame me.
I put it in the same category as death panels and 9/11 truthers.
It was the law of the FCC regulated land until 1987, when they abolished it. Dems in congress have been trying to get it passed as enforceable law ever since. No straw man, it was a real thing.They say to never ask a question to which you don't know the answer, but, has anyone ever actually suggested the Fairness Doctrine be put into place? I thought that was just a self serving strawman for the masturbatory deliverance of righteous anger. And, by anyone, I mean anyone who's real, not a person paid to look like a strawman and take extreme positions to justify said anger.Putting the internet in the hands of the government opens the web up to partisan shenanigans (like the so called "Fairness Doctrine", the only purpose of which was eliminating right wing talk radio - broadcast and print media already lean one direction for the most part, having radio not lean the same way is poison to certain politicians.
Hmmm... remakes & sequels are all the rage with the movie studios... {starts scribbling down new script ideas for a "Bill & Ted" remake with Beck and Palin going back in time to fix history. Oddly, casting Alex Winters as Beck and Keanu as Palin still works...}
|
|
Any time you add government regulation you add government bureaucracy and any time you add government bureaucracy you add governmental taxes to support the bureaucracy. Any time you add bureaucrcy you add a stepping stone to further governmental regulation, etc. Besides, the world wide web is "world wide" and attempts by any country to control it will eventually be illusionary. So in this case we get more govenment and more taxes for no real effect.
The link is more of a synopsis or intro than an analysis...Right; after reading it, I clicked on THEIR link that said, "see our super-duper insightful analysis here." I usually try to take the stuff people send seriously enough to follow it a bit.
Oops. Given what you quoted I should have picked up on that.
In any case I suppose libertarian frustration shows through at times.
Ok convince me it is bad.I am absolutely against Net Neutrality, I will vote against it, and any arguments you may have in support of it are without merit.I mean come on this is cut and dry here people. There is no reason to vote no against it.
There are companies who provide services that are not readily available over the internet who wish to do so and in some cases have expanded to the internet. However, doing so without the ability of service providers to restrict access would make it impossible for them to charge for doing so.
Example...
Through my cable company and internet provider, Cox, I purchased ESPN Gameplan which allows me to watch additional college football games that I would not normally be able to watch in my area, games by a team from where I grew up. This is a special feature offered by ESPN. I can also watch games online through ESPN3. This is an even larger choice than I have for my Gameplan package. I am not certain if my provider would give me access to ESPN3 if I had not bought the package.
In some areas, the cable providers (often also the internet provider) have not made arrangements (i.e. pay money to ESPN) to carry Gameplan. In those areas, ESPN3 games are blacked out on the internet.
My point is that if the games could be seen over the internet for free by everyone, then there would be no revenue available to ESPN to convince them to show them. Therefore, available to everyone for free on the net would mean available to no one on the net.
That is the reasoning for providers to do such a thing. Could the government step in and regulate such things? Yes, but I would rather the government not be involved if at all possible.
I would rather have the government, which the people at least have nominal control of, have some kind of control, than to let the fat cat billionaires trying to become trillionaires with no sense of self control have all the control.
Their behavior is just another reason I'm not wireless.
|
Sebastian's shadow boxing analogy is pretty close to the truth.
Net neutrality means your local ISP charges you (and only you) for service. Without Net Neutrality they could throttle or even cut off traffic going to consumers based on origin. The idea is they could charge a fee to companies like Google (YouTube), Hulu, and Netflix to ensure a clear pipe to the consumers.
If you could somehow create net neutrality in a pure form I would probably support the idea but I suspect as usual unintended consequences will make it a horrible idea. Generally laws like this wind up largely protecting the industry insiders rather than offering any real consumer protections.
I put it in the same category as death panels and 9/11 truthers.
HEY! I RESEMBLE THAT!
If you could somehow create net neutrality in a pure form I would probably support the idea but I suspect as usual unintended consequences will make it a horrible idea. Generally laws like this wind up largely protecting the industry insiders rather than offering any real consumer protections.
Maybe even a little more often than "generally".
|
|
If you could somehow create net neutrality in a pure form I would probably support the idea but I suspect as usual unintended consequences will make it a horrible idea. Generally laws like this wind up largely protecting the industry insiders rather than offering any real consumer protections.Maybe even a little more often than "generally".
Yeah, The vast majority of industry regulation is indirectly written and engineered by the people in the industry to protect their own interests.
If you could somehow create net neutrality in a pure form I would probably support the idea but I suspect as usual unintended consequences will make it a horrible idea. Generally laws like this wind up largely protecting the industry insiders rather than offering any real consumer protections.Maybe even a little more often than "generally".Yeah, The vast majority of industry regulation is indirectly written and engineered by the people in the industry to protect their own interests.
+1
|
Ok convince me it is bad.I am absolutely against Net Neutrality, I will vote against it, and any arguments you may have in support of it are without merit.I mean come on this is cut and dry here people. There is no reason to vote no against it.
There are companies who provide services that are not readily available over the internet who wish to do so and in some cases have expanded to the internet. However, doing so without the ability of service providers to restrict access would make it impossible for them to charge for doing so.
Example...
Through my cable company and internet provider, Cox, I purchased ESPN Gameplan which allows me to watch additional college football games that I would not normally be able to watch in my area, games by a team from where I grew up. This is a special feature offered by ESPN. I can also watch games online through ESPN3. This is an even larger choice than I have for my Gameplan package. I am not certain if my provider would give me access to ESPN3 if I had not bought the package.
In some areas, the cable providers (often also the internet provider) have not made arrangements (i.e. pay money to ESPN) to carry Gameplan. In those areas, ESPN3 games are blacked out on the internet.
My point is that if the games could be seen over the internet for free by everyone, then there would be no revenue available to ESPN to convince them to show them. Therefore, available to everyone for free on the net would mean available to no one on the net.
That is the reasoning for providers to do such a thing. Could the government step in and regulate such things? Yes, but I would rather the government not be involved if at all possible.
You do not need to have a subscription to Gameplan to have ESPN3. It is a part of your Internet subscription.
+1If you could somehow create net neutrality in a pure form I would probably support the idea but I suspect as usual unintended consequences will make it a horrible idea. Generally laws like this wind up largely protecting the industry insiders rather than offering any real consumer protections.Maybe even a little more often than "generally".Yeah, The vast majority of industry regulation is indirectly written and engineered by the people in the industry to protect their own interests.
I think of it as a refreshing new way to get raped by the same people, that way I enjoy it more.
Wow, I did not know you had such a thing.
You do not need to have a subscription to Gameplan to have ESPN3. It is a part of your Internet subscription.Ok convince me it is bad.I am absolutely against Net Neutrality, I will vote against it, and any arguments you may have in support of it are without merit.I mean come on this is cut and dry here people. There is no reason to vote no against it.
There are companies who provide services that are not readily available over the internet who wish to do so and in some cases have expanded to the internet. However, doing so without the ability of service providers to restrict access would make it impossible for them to charge for doing so.
Example...
Through my cable company and internet provider, Cox, I purchased ESPN Gameplan which allows me to watch additional college football games that I would not normally be able to watch in my area, games by a team from where I grew up. This is a special feature offered by ESPN. I can also watch games online through ESPN3. This is an even larger choice than I have for my Gameplan package. I am not certain if my provider would give me access to ESPN3 if I had not bought the package.
In some areas, the cable providers (often also the internet provider) have not made arrangements (i.e. pay money to ESPN) to carry Gameplan. In those areas, ESPN3 games are blacked out on the internet.
My point is that if the games could be seen over the internet for free by everyone, then there would be no revenue available to ESPN to convince them to show them. Therefore, available to everyone for free on the net would mean available to no one on the net.
That is the reasoning for providers to do such a thing. Could the government step in and regulate such things? Yes, but I would rather the government not be involved if at all possible.
But, the point still remains that I can access it through Cox because they have made arrangements with ESPN. Some others I have spoken with (internet) who use a different provider (that made no such arrangements) are unable to get ESPN3 and were thus unable to view the games. But, if everyone could see ESPN3 just by having the net instead of ESPN selling it to various providers, then there would be no money to induce ESPN to put it on the net and thus no one would benefit.
|
|
My friend I feel ESPN would still do and make ESPN3. They already had the ESPN360 website which they then cored down and set up right usage with the cable companies as ESPN3. Why it made them more money then selling ESPN360 by itself. Net neutrality would force them to go back to the previous marketing strategy of selling to individuals instead of forcing companies to purchase access rights to the website if they want to continue to have the cable channels at a more reasonable rate.
I'm all for net neutrality.
I don't understand the discussion really, its net neutrality or spoon fed access to what the providers wish, when they wish it. Maybe that's extreme but there would be little stopping them from major restrictions on anything they don't deem to be a worthy use of bandwidth.
Edit:
This is especially true if there is a conflict of interest. Please don't tell me that that you believe a cable, cable internet and phone provider wont try to lower the quality of service from things like skype, hulu and others just to 'encourage' their customers not to stray.
I believe this is relevant.
|
|
I'm all for net neutrality.
I don't understand the discussion really, its net neutrality or spoon fed access to what the providers wish, when they wish it. Maybe that's extreme but there would be little stopping them from major restrictions on anything they don't deem to be a worthy use of bandwidth.
Edit:
This is especially true if there is a conflict of interest. Please don't tell me that that you believe a cable, cable internet and phone provider wont try to lower the quality of service from things like skype, hulu and others just to 'encourage' their customers not to stray.
While I agree to an extent there is what at first seems a conflict of interest. I can honestly say that from working in the Tel-com industry the level of quality from a regular phone or a ISP VOIP option on the back end is so much more secure and much higher in quality that they really do not care if you use SKYPE or other programs that much. It is not hitting the bottom line so much as to even cause any long term worries at this point. If however the quality and security goes up on those types of programs such as Vonage, well that then one day may cause a shift. That day however is not anywhere near.
Putting the internet in the hands of the government opens the web up to partisan shenanigans (like the so called "Fairness Doctrine", the only purpose of which was eliminating right wing talk radio - broadcast and print media already lean one direction for the most part, having radio not lean the same way is poison to certain politicians.
Never mind "fairness" (which is total BS), I do think there should be a "truthfulness" doctrine preventing people like Moore and Limbaugh from spouting totally false statistics that they make up simply to fuel their rantings. For example, one morning on the radio I heard the very ominous statement, "Did you know Obama issued more signing orders in his first 6 months in office than any president in history?" -- which sounded like a Very Bad Thing to me. So I looked up the record of signing orders (freely available to the public) and counted them... only to find that the statement was totally fictitious. Not just an exaggeration, but completely false.
SO, in that spirit, I'll start my own radio news program or movie "documentary," make sure I call myself an "entertainer" while I'm giving the "news," and explain to you that the average Democrat eats 32.6 innocent human children in their lifetime and that 98.66% of republicans are secret Islamofascists who want to establish Shariah law as a backlash against the Islamophobia they're secretly provoking, which is why Net Neutrality is a plot to increase Google revenue by $80M per year at the cost of increasing the national deficit by $100 trillion over the next six months.
And I'll say all that with a straight face. Or maybe blubber and cry, if it boosts my ratings.
Putting the internet in the hands of the government opens the web up to partisan shenanigans (like the so called "Fairness Doctrine", the only purpose of which was eliminating right wing talk radio - broadcast and print media already lean one direction for the most part, having radio not lean the same way is poison to certain politicians.Never mind "fairness" (which is total BS), I do think there should be a "truthfulness" doctrine preventing people like Moore and Limbaugh from spouting totally false statistics that they make up simply to fuel their rantings.
The Fairness Doctrine, when it was instituted in 1949 by the FCC, wasn't an effort to eliminate right-wing talk radio. It was regulation of a public resource, the airwaves, in the interests of the public trust. Issues of importance to the public needed to be covered honestly, and with equitable, balanced treatment of the pros and cons. You want to use a public resource? You have to abide by certain rules to uphold the public trust.
How well do you think issues important to the public get covered now with the Fairness Doctrine 20+ years in the grave, with the increased media conglomeration after the 1996 telecom deregulation? From where I'm sitting, things don't look so good. A whole of public trust got thrown under the bus in favor of media corporation politics. Do we want the same thing with the internet? Do we want access to alternative view points, sectional interests (like gaming hobby sites), and other small-time resources crowded out by big corporation priority access?
The Fairness Doctrine, when it was instituted in 1949 by the FCC, wasn't an effort to eliminate right-wing talk radio. It was regulation of a public resource, the airwaves, in the interests of the public trust. Issues of importance to the public needed to be covered honestly, and with equitable, balanced treatment of the pros and cons. You want to use a public resource? You have to abide by certain rules to uphold the public trust.How well do you think issues important to the public get covered now with the Fairness Doctrine 20+ years in the grave, with the increased media conglomeration after the 1996 telecom deregulation? From where I'm sitting, things don't look so good. A whole of public trust got thrown under the bus in favor of media corporation politics. Do we want the same thing with the internet? Do we want access to alternative view points, sectional interests (like gaming hobby sites), and other small-time resources crowded out by big corporation priority access?
Well put Bill.
As an aside, I get a chuckle out of the "left-wing media" bit every time. Sure, there are studies that agree. And there are studies that disagree. My personal opinion is that the best predictor of perceived media bias is the bias of the media consumer. :)
Interestingly enough, last night David Letterman touched on the issue without directly naming it as Fair Use. In an interview with Barbara Walters, he complained about current media outlets compared to the days when the airwaves were treated as a public trust.
Interestingly enough, last night David Letterman touched on the issue without directly naming it as Fair Use. In an interview with Barbara Walters, he complained about current media outlets compared to the days when the airwaves were treated as a public trust.
It's predictable that vermin like Letterman would pine for the the "good old days" of censorship and statism. I often wonder my so many members of the media dislike free speech so much.
It's predictable that vermin like Letterman would pine for the the "good old days" of censorship and statism. I often wonder my so many members of the media dislike free speech so much.
It's not a question of censorship. It's a question of what the public gets for allowing a private entity to exclusively use a public resource. If media companies can't deal with that, maybe they shouldn't be using public resources.