|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 21:59:41 GMT
This is going to be a long-winded question. Sorry. (snip) I can see the problem in an area where your choice of ISP is limited to one provider. I believe TLW is in that situation. Here, I have a choice of three hard wire high speed providers. There is some competition and that's good. Out of the three, there is one that is not too bad. That's Wide Open West (WOW). They're a lot better than Comcast and AT&T. At least as far as customer service goes. WOW is a few dollars more expensive, but after dealing with AT&T and seeing what my friends and neighbors have to go through with Comcast, I'll gladly pay a little more. Maybe that's what is needed. Just more competition, not more regulation. and that is the heart of the issue for the net neutrality proponents: the potential for Comcast and AT&T to crowd out all competition. really, in every market, I expect there to be two primary ISP choices: the telephone provider and the TV provider - with the potential for a third party to set up a wireless provider system that uses bulk data rates on an existing backbone for their infrastructure. - it is one of those issues - there is a basic infrastructure requirement, and that makes it logistically prohibitive to have open market systems in place (by which I mean multiple competing companies in the manner of, for example, ice cream marketing. - it actually took me some thinking to come up with a commodity that wasn't dominated by two major brands) now, mind you, I am not saying the net neutrality bill is the finest piece of legislation since the Bill of Rights. I am sure it is far from it. I am just saying I trust john Boehner more than I trust Brian L. Roberts. (CEO of comcast, so you don't have to look him up) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 22:15:16 GMT
now, mind you, I am not saying the net neutrality bill is the finest piece of legislation since the Bill of Rights. I am sure it is far from it. I am just saying I trust john Boehner more than I trust Brian L. Roberts. (CEO of comcast, so you don't have to look him up) That's my beef. That's not what they are doing. On Feb 26th the FCC votes amongst itself to take control. No bill, no Congressional approval, no Presidential signature. Nothing. And they claim they already have that right under a law passed in 1934. Long before anyone even dreamed of an internet. This power grab gives them complete control, not just the control over monopolistic business practices that the House bill outlines. The administration doesn't want the House bill because it doesn't give them enough authority. This would even give them control over content. Of course they say they would never even think about limiting free speech. Right. Just like the IRS would never think about targeting one political group over another. You may trust them. I don't. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 22:55:53 GMT
Like I said. You trust them. I don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 23:23:42 GMT
now, mind you, I am not saying the net neutrality bill is the finest piece of legislation since the Bill of Rights. I am sure it is far from it. I am just saying I trust john Boehner more than I trust Brian L. Roberts. (CEO of comcast, so you don't have to look him up) That's my beef. That's not what they are doing. On Feb 26th the FCC votes amongst itself to take control. No bill, no Congressional approval, no Presidential signature. Nothing. And they claim they already have that right under a law passed in 1934. Long before anyone even dreamed of an internet. This power grab gives them complete control, not just the control over monopolistic business practices that the House bill outlines. The administration doesn't want the House bill because it doesn't give them enough authority. This would even give them control over content. Of course they say they would never even think about limiting free speech. Right. Just like the IRS would never think about targeting one political group over another. You may trust them. I don't. woops - thought I was deleting a duplicate post to summarize: the net neutrality bill is not about whether the FCC assumes they have control over the internet - they already assume they have control. the bill is about what direction that control goes in. it is about whether the ISP is assumed to have the right to dictate rules about the content transmitted on their carriers, or the customer is assumed to have the right to equal access to all legally available content. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 9, 2015 23:28:44 GMT
the net neutrality bill is not about whether the FCC assumes they have control over the internet - they already assume they have control. the bill is about what direction that control goes in. it is about whether the ISP is assumed to have the right to dictate rules about the content transmitted on their carriers, or the customer is assumed to have the right to equal access to all legally available content. Seems I'm not the only one to question this FCC power grab. congress-looking-into-white-houses-role-in-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 23:49:58 GMT
the net neutrality bill is not about whether the FCC assumes they have control over the internet - they already assume they have control. the bill is about what direction that control goes in. it is about whether the ISP is assumed to have the right to dictate rules about the content transmitted on their carriers, or the customer is assumed to have the right to equal access to all legally available content. Seems I'm not the only one to question this FCC power grab. congress-looking-into-white-houses-role-in-fccs-net-neutrality-regulationyour link circles right back here. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 23:58:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 10, 2015 0:05:34 GMT
Wow, don't know what happened to my link. Guess some of my Control-V got stuck on my Control-C. Either that, or I really do have something to be paranoid about. Try it now. As to your us news link. Of course some of the opposition is coming from the republicans. That's their job, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2015 0:17:34 GMT
Wow, don't know what happened to my link. Guess some of my Control-V got stuck on my Control-C. Either that, or I really do have something to be paranoid about. Try it now. As to your us news link. Of course some of the opposition is coming from the republicans. That's their job, isn't it? it seems to be fixed. as for the opposition, this is what comes from allowing people to write their own job descriptions - according to some of the republican politicians, "opposition to Obama" is the summary of their job. unfortunately, that small fraction colors the whole political process. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 10, 2015 0:41:47 GMT
- according to some of the republican politicians, "opposition to Obama" is the summary of their job. Unfortunately, that's true. I'm sure there is plenty they can disagree on, but when that's their only skill set, they shouldn't be allowed in Washington. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2015 1:12:57 GMT
- according to some of the republican politicians, "opposition to Obama" is the summary of their job. Unfortunately, that's true. I'm sure there is plenty they can disagree on, but when that's their only skill set, they shouldn't be allowed in Washington. I am becoming fully sick of the kneejerk partisan bickering that comes from the lowest common denominator in politics. It is ridiculous that the majority of Americans cast their votes in the direction they think will ruin their lives the least, or are forced to prioritize fiscal considerations over societal considerations or vice versa - worst of it is, this gridlock was PREDICTED at the founding of America. (I forget which founding father it was who spoke against political parties and am too lazy at the moment to look it up) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 10, 2015 1:47:01 GMT
Unfortunately, that's true. I'm sure there is plenty they can disagree on, but when that's their only skill set, they shouldn't be allowed in Washington. I am becoming fully sick of the kneejerk partisan bickering that comes from the lowest common denominator in politics. It is ridiculous that the majority of Americans cast their votes in the direction they think will ruin their lives the least, or are forced to prioritize fiscal considerations over societal considerations or vice versa - worst of it is, this gridlock was PREDICTED at the founding of America. (I forget which founding father it was who spoke against political parties and am too lazy at the moment to look it up) I think that was John Adams and he had a valid point. How many good ideas get stifled because they don't fall in line with either party? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2015 6:16:12 GMT
I am becoming fully sick of the kneejerk partisan bickering that comes from the lowest common denominator in politics. It is ridiculous that the majority of Americans cast their votes in the direction they think will ruin their lives the least, or are forced to prioritize fiscal considerations over societal considerations or vice versa - worst of it is, this gridlock was PREDICTED at the founding of America. (I forget which founding father it was who spoke against political parties and am too lazy at the moment to look it up) I think that was John Adams and he had a valid point. How many good ideas get stifled because they don't fall in line with either party? for that matter, how many good ideas get stifled because one party really likes them? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 10, 2015 6:55:35 GMT
I need to dispel some myths created my conspiracy theorists.
Neutrality means the same as it always has.
No one is now going to charge you extra to view certain parts of the internet.
There will be no "Tiered" system where the biggest payers get to see more.
You will get those who want cheep access at slower speeds, and those who want faster speeds pay more, but there wont be a system where you can be charged extra to jump the que at busy times...
Everyone will get the same data in fair first come first served order..
Just those who pay for faster speeds will get it delivered faster, and have access for more than one device at a time.
Govt control?...
Yes, why yes there is.
The Control is to stop greedy goits like mucky murdock charging you "as much as he can before you scream", to access his part of the internet.
The Govt also wants to know basics about what YOU are doing on the internet, to filer out and watch for those who are using it "For bad things"
Yeah, you is being watched....
What price freedom?..
But finding out that the Govt is watching your local nut job teenager and have gotten there the day he actually posted "I am going to shoot you all" on his school facebook page and have arrested his ass before he reached the school?...
.......Priceless.
Yes the Govt have control.
But you also get Govt officials driving down every road you drive on to make sure you is behaving yourself....
They call 'em policemen.
Isnt it about time we had some coppers watching out for bad boys on the internet?...
You decide.
You answers to this are of interest to me, because I am capable of providing feedback to those who are able to do something about it...
And so far, all I can see on this subject is we NEED Internet Police.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 10, 2015 14:37:46 GMT
You already have my feedback.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2015 14:53:58 GMT
I need to dispel some myths created my conspiracy theorists. Neutrality means the same as it always has. No one is now going to charge you extra to view certain parts of the internet. There will be no "Tiered" system where the biggest payers get to see more. You will get those who want cheep access at slower speeds, and those who want faster speeds pay more, but there wont be a system where you can be charged extra to jump the que at busy times... Everyone will get the same data in fair first come first served order.. Just those who pay for faster speeds will get it delivered faster, and have access for more than one device at a time. Govt control?... Yes, why yes there is. The Control is to stop greedy goits like mucky murdock charging you "as much as he can before you scream", to access his part of the internet. The Govt also wants to know basics about what YOU are doing on the internet, to filer out and watch for those who are using it "For bad things" Yeah, you is being watched.... What price freedom?.. But finding out that the Govt is watching your local nut job teenager and have gotten there the day he actually posted "I am going to shoot you all" on his school facebook page and have arrested his ass before he reached the school?... .......Priceless. Yes the Govt have control. But you also get Govt officials driving down every road you drive on to make sure you is behaving yourself.... They call 'em policemen. Isnt it about time we had some coppers watching out for bad boys on the internet?... You decide. You answers to this are of interest to me, because I am capable of providing feedback to those who are able to do something about it... And so far, all I can see on this subject is we NEED Internet Police. as far as I can tell, there is nothing to prevent mucky murdoch from charging you to see his content - it just stops him charging other people for YOU to see THEIR content. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Feb 12, 2015 20:33:25 GMT
I still think the state should own the actual infrastructure and have isp's rent it.
This will both prevent monopolies and give a good regular income for the state to update and maintain the lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 12, 2015 21:00:25 GMT
I still think the state should own the actual infrastructure and have isp's rent it. This will both prevent monopolies and give a good regular income for the state to update and maintain the lines. One word. Amtrak |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 13, 2015 2:11:51 GMT
I still think the state should own the actual infrastructure and have isp's rent it. This will both prevent monopolies and give a good regular income for the state to update and maintain the lines. here, the state basically gives utilities a contract which gives them control over an area, and in exchange, the state controls their rates. its one of those cases - does free market give a better deal or does state run services give a better deal? a for-profit will make sure not to be wasteful - but they can make up the difference in the CEO's performance bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 13, 2015 2:40:57 GMT
I still think the state should own the actual infrastructure and have isp's rent it. This will both prevent monopolies and give a good regular income for the state to update and maintain the lines. here, the state basically gives utilities a contract which gives them control over an area, and in exchange, the state controls their rates. its one of those cases - does free market give a better deal or does state run services give a better deal? a for-profit will make sure not to be wasteful - but they can make up the difference in the CEO's performance bonus. Free market will always do a better job provided there is competition. Government services have no competition. That's why we have the situation in the VA hospitals. Private enterprise will do no better when only one company is granted the exclusive authority to serve a given location. When our town finally came to their senses and allowed a number of cable companies to compete, prices went down and service improved on all of them. |
|
