FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
Toll roads in NY, PA, and Florida (the only places I've driven on them) are not as good but definitely not as worse as the publicly maintained roads. Seems hit and miss depending on what municipality you're in.
NY Toll Roads are State maintained.
Which I never understood. Do you pay twice to drive in those roads... Even when it's been down that the tolls collected don't maintain the roads.
Yes of course you pay twice to drive on the roads. You paid to have them paved, and you're always paying to use them. You're still paying for them even if you don't use them by paying taxes.
Right which kind of goes against the purpose of toll roads.
Toll roads would only make sense if Non-residence plates were tolled, and that states plates weren't tolled.
But NY (I'm sure others) is in the F-you all game and charges everyone.
TX did the opposite, only charged TX plates and no one else. NY at least does it on roads only used by non-residents. TX does it on the commuter roads.
-
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
having lived in countries where the government oversees the cabling, nothing compares to it.
Like in North Korea, China, and Iran? These are extreme examples of government control, but I don't trust Trump's government to keep their hands out of the flow internet traffic. This is why I am in favor of NN now, but want to see it removed when (if) we do not have monopolies in the majority of markets.
Isn't that a slippery slope argument? There are dozens of other countries where ISPs are treated as utilities and don't have the issues that we have here. Most of the fastest countries in the world have a national ISP.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
NY at least does it on roads only used by non-residents.
You're smoking crack today apparently.
-
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
NY at least does it on roads only used by non-residents.
You're smoking crack today apparently.
NY's toll road is the PA to MA road. It's not very useful, especially for any distance, for NYers.
-
They specifically have tolls in NY because it's the NY bypass highway.
-
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
NY at least does it on roads only used by non-residents.
You're smoking crack today apparently.
I'm going to agree with you. I90 is one of the most traveled roads in NY maybe the north east.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
NY at least does it on roads only used by non-residents.
You're smoking crack today apparently.
NY's toll road is the PA to MA road. It's not very useful, especially for any distance, for NYers.
Ah I see what you're saying.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
NY at least does it on roads only used by non-residents.
You're smoking crack today apparently.
I'm going to agree with you. I90 is one of the most traveled roads in NY maybe the north east.
Yes, but by locals?
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
NY at least does it on roads only used by non-residents.
You're smoking crack today apparently.
NY's toll road is the PA to MA road. It's not very useful, especially for any distance, for NYers.
Ah I see what you're saying.
I grew up just off of that road, it's a road you always drive over or under, but rarely along.
-
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Im not sure why this is even a debate. The argument for NN was won a century ago. It is the same argument that existed for water and electric service. The same types of pro-monopoly-fuck-everybody-else people exist today; they also existed 100 years ago. Doesnt make their ideas any more valid now.
The people who are taking a principled stand against it are ones who want less government control of anything. They're not wrong, but they are wrong about what we need right now. We need net neutrality to stay in place until the day when there aren't monopolistic controls (assuming it should ever come).
Your first sentence is provably false. I submit all laws passed in the last 30 years in US as proof.
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Im not sure why this is even a debate. The argument for NN was won a century ago. It is the same argument that existed for water and electric service. The same types of pro-monopoly-fuck-everybody-else people exist today; they also existed 100 years ago. Doesnt make their ideas any more valid now.
Because those people's companies are now considered people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FECStill dont see how this makes the Monopolists argument relevant.
Elucidate please. -
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Im not sure why this is even a debate. The argument for NN was won a century ago. It is the same argument that existed for water and electric service. The same types of pro-monopoly-fuck-everybody-else people exist today; they also existed 100 years ago. Doesnt make their ideas any more valid now.
The people who are taking a principled stand against it are ones who want less government control of anything. They're not wrong, but they are wrong about what we need right now. We need net neutrality to stay in place until the day when there aren't monopolistic controls (assuming it should ever come).
Your first sentence is provably false. I submit all laws passed in the last 30 years in US as proof.
@jaredbusch said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Im not sure why this is even a debate. The argument for NN was won a century ago. It is the same argument that existed for water and electric service. The same types of pro-monopoly-fuck-everybody-else people exist today; they also existed 100 years ago. Doesnt make their ideas any more valid now.
Because those people's companies are now considered people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FECStill dont see how this makes the Monopolists argument relevant.
Elucidate please.Because, in recent years, prior to Citizens United, corporations and special interest groups were severely restricted in the amount of money that they could legally throw into the political machine.
Monopolists like this are a small group of real people. Yes, they still tossed a lot of money into politics, but it was just them, and the few others they could convince to do the same.
Now, the companies they run, most are monopolies, can just toss tons of their cash at the political process unchecked.
-
@jaredbusch Ah you are saying their stance is indefensible, but since they can throw unlimited amounts of money at lawmakers they can do what they want.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
Toll roads in NY, PA, and Florida (the only places I've driven on them) are not as good but definitely not as worse as the publicly maintained roads. Seems hit and miss depending on what municipality you're in.
NY Toll Roads are State maintained.
Which I never understood. Do you pay twice to drive in those roads... Even when it's been down that the tolls collected don't maintain the roads.
Yes of course you pay twice to drive on the roads. You paid to have them paved, and you're always paying to use them. You're still paying for them even if you don't use them by paying taxes.
Right which kind of goes against the purpose of toll roads.
Toll roads would only make sense if Non-residence plates were tolled, and that states plates weren't tolled.
But NY (I'm sure others) is in the F-you all game and charges everyone.
NY at least does it on roads only used by non-residents. TX does it on the commuter roads.
Used by only non-residents.ahahah From the City of Rochester to Canandaigua you can take the back roads, and drive for over an hour.
Or you can take the toll-way and get there in 30 minutes. (everyone is charged) and everyone uses the toll-roads unless it's a pain to get to an on-ramp.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
One of the many reasons I'm for local loop unbundling. Let the municipalities manage the last mile and allow ISPs to competitively access the consumer.
If our roads are any sort of indicator of quality I might pass on this option.
You state this as if a Comcast road would be better? NO way.
Yeah, has anyone else seen the condition of the privatized toll routes? Forget tire-eating potholes, those are just the starting point!
If those were that bad, why are drivers still using them? I take it the cost of replacing stuff hasn't out weighted the cost of driving alternative routes.
Toll roads in NY, PA, and Florida (the only places I've driven on them) are not as good but definitely not as bad as the publicly maintained roads. Seems hit and miss depending on what municipality you're in.
The toll roads I drive in Chicagoland are in general pretty awesome. I don't recall them ever being bad.
-
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@momurda said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Im not sure why this is even a debate. The argument for NN was won a century ago. It is the same argument that existed for water and electric service. The same types of pro-monopoly-fuck-everybody-else people exist today; they also existed 100 years ago. Doesnt make their ideas any more valid now.
The people who are taking a principled stand against it are ones who want less government control of anything. They're not wrong, but they are wrong about what we need right now. We need net neutrality to stay in place until the day when there aren't monopolistic controls (assuming it should ever come).
Your first sentence is provably false. I submit all laws passed in the last 30 years in US as proof.
Key phrase, principled stand. Most that have been visibly against NN are not taking a principled stand.
-
-
-
-
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Doesn't surprise me.
I'm actually surprised they didn't add a statement saying they are going to be charging for using any website not operated and owned by Comcast!
-
