FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, municipalities should not be able to sell exclusive rights to single or even dual carriers to the easements.
This I agree with mostly, unless the municipality is offering free internet as a part of the taxes.
It's where there is no community choice, that businesses like Frontier, Time Warner (Spectrum) etc are entrenched and make these wild claims about leaving etc, that the municipality folds and provides these insane concessions.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Ordinarily the capitalist in me would make me agree with him,
Capitalism demands a fair market. Monopolies are privatization of planned economies. So it's actually the communist in you that would agree with him.
What? No, the part that agrees only agrees IF we have a fair market, but the ISP market space is anything but fair, so I don't agree with him at all.
The part I agree with, again only given a fair market, is it's my service, I've paid to put it in place, I should be able to put what I want, and only what I want on it... but again, we don't live in a fair market, so this doesn't apply.
-
@Dashrender technically a fair market can be a market of 1. . .
-
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender technically a fair market can be a market of 1. . .
It's not how many are in the market, but how many can be in the market.
-
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, municipalities should not be able to sell exclusive rights to single or even dual carriers to the easements.
This I agree with mostly, unless the municipality is offering free internet as a part of the taxes.
It's where there is no community choice, that businesses like Frontier, Time Warner (Spectrum) etc are entrenched and make these wild claims about leaving etc, that the municipality folds and provides these insane concessions.
I'm not really for a municipality providing access either. Infrastructure for access, sure, but actual internet access - I'm borderline. If the city does the right thing and constantly renegotiates it's contracts to get good rates for the municipality, then maybe. But the ISPs could have a junction to the municipalities network and then residents could pick any provider they wanted... all the while the city ensuring it's not the bottle neck (taxes) would allow actual competition.
But managing a network like that might just not be doable.I'm I'm not a huge fan of the city being the ISP because I'm against government having those records (not that they don't pay the ISPs for them now).
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender technically a fair market can be a market of 1. . .
It's not how many are in the market, but how many can be in the market.
Exactly. If you invent something, the market is fair as long as you're the only player. The instant there's a second player, if they are somehow prevented from coming into the market, it's no longer fair.
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, municipalities should not be able to sell exclusive rights to single or even dual carriers to the easements.
This I agree with mostly, unless the municipality is offering free internet as a part of the taxes.
It's where there is no community choice, that businesses like Frontier, Time Warner (Spectrum) etc are entrenched and make these wild claims about leaving etc, that the municipality folds and provides these insane concessions.
I'm not really for a municipality providing access either. Infrastructure for access, sure, but actual internet access - I'm borderline. If the city does the right thing and constantly renegotiates it's contracts to get good rates for the municipality, then maybe. But the ISPs could have a junction to the municipalities network and then residents could pick any provider they wanted... all the while the city ensuring it's not the bottle neck (taxes) would allow actual competition.
But managing a network like that might just not be doable.I'm I'm not a huge fan of the city being the ISP because I'm against government having those records (not that they don't pay the ISPs for them now).
Government will have the records either way. I prefer pushing the records into government hands because that is what pushes for regulation. Having governments only have records unofficially, or sometimes, encourages people to ignore putting watchdogs on the government.
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender technically a fair market can be a market of 1. . .
It's not how many are in the market, but how many can be in the market.
Exactly. If you invent something, the market is fair as long as you're the only player. The instant there's a second player, if they are somehow prevented from coming into the market, it's no longer fair.
Right.
-
Pai doesn't like the open internet... calls for further open internet policies.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Pai doesn't like .....
Freedom of speech, America, etc.
-
Isn't public corruption fun? At least they tried to hide it in the past.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Isn't public corruption fun? At least they tried to hide it in the past.
At least Comcast tried to stop this happening
-
Pai says that ISPs aren't a pipe to the internet by describing a pipe to the internet...
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Pai says that ISPs aren't a pipe to the internet by describing a pipe to the internet...
There are not enough foxes on the planet for the sheer level of FFS this shit needs.
-
@JaredBusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Pai says that ISPs aren't a pipe to the internet by describing a pipe to the internet...
There are not enough foxes on the planet for the sheer level of FFS this shit needs.
Seriously. It amazes me that someone who is obviously so incompetent as to not understand what the internet is and where it came from can regulate it.
-
/s It's cool guys, we're all just having a massive shared hallucination.
Calm down . . .
/sAlso make sure to watch John Olivier Tonight, as I'm sure he'll be back on this topic.
Repeat these in your twitter posts etc. Go to the below website and tell them you support Strong Title II and the classification of Broadband as Telecommunications.
#gofccyourself
-
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/09/pai_net_neutrality_plan/
Net Neutrality more popular than the FCC thought.
-
Boeing working on pilotless planes...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/09/boeing_plans_pilotless_passenger_flights/
-
Obviously the internet needs fast lanes to survive.
-
@coliver this quote right here proves that Pai and the rest of the Anti Net Neutrality congressmen have no clue at all how the internet operates.
"Chairman Pai just mentioned medical diagnostics," Johnson said. "You might need a fast lane within that pipeline so those diagnoses can be transmitted instantaneously and not be held up by, I don't know, maybe a movie streaming."
