FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
Well
That was nice for awhile
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
That's just it - it won't happen overnight. It will take months or even years.
And it will be slow. I think @DustinB3403 mentioned the boiled frog analogy. This is going to be death by a thousand cuts and there will be no relief from a consumer advocacy group (which is what the FCC was originally intended to be).
Scott mentioned it, but it's exactly what will happen.
You won't think anything about having to pay an extra $50 per month to be able to watch Youtube or whatever service comes out in the future.
To think about this differently, imagine if hospitals had to pay for faster internet service so a specialist surgeon in France can perform a remote operation on a patient in Canada.
They do this today, but aren't charged extra for the bandwidth speeds required for this kind of service.
Now an ISP could force the hospital (and subsequently your health insurance) more for unfettered internet speeds across their network. So your 1Gbe internet connection is actually 1 Gbe end to end.
Or could charge more depending on who you are!
Exactly service providers will get charged through the nose to be able to provide service at any decent internet speeds across a competitors network.
IE: No more apple pay on samsung phones etc. . . (as a bad example)
-
State attorney general's from across the nation are suing the FCC to reinstate NN
-
Yeehaw capitalism
-
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Yeehaw capitalism
Technically this is anti-capitalism. The FCC allowing private money to influence the government is as far from capitalism ideals as you can get. That's not an open market.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Yeehaw capitalism
Technically this is anti-capitalism. The FCC allowing private money to influence the government is as far from capitalism ideals as you can get. That's not an open market.
Yes, fundamentally, idealy, capitalism is good, just like communism... but in practice (just add people) communism doesn't work.
-
Many things are that way, though. Great, but when put into practice, horrible.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
FreePress.net is going to sue the FCC and work to get congress to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.
I did not read the article but what use is FCC and Net Neutrality, if Congress can reinstate Net Neutrality rules?
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Yeehaw capitalism
Technically this is anti-capitalism. The FCC allowing private money to influence the government is as far from capitalism ideals as you can get. That's not an open market.
Capitalism: a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Time Warner (for example) wanting to control their internet service in such a way to maximize profits at the cost of the public is very capitalist.
That the government is trying to control how a service provider provides it services (lessening ISP profits), and ISPs trying to pay off the government so they can do what they want. If the government is controlling them, then that is opposite of capitalism.
That the ISPs are trying to do what they want to to maximize profits (even if paying off the FCC to get what they want) is capitalist.
Being able to pay off FCC / government to get what you want is a different problem.
-
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Yeehaw capitalism
Technically this is anti-capitalism. The FCC allowing private money to influence the government is as far from capitalism ideals as you can get. That's not an open market.
Capitalism: a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
But not going past the law. The issue here is that corruption was involved. It's not a capitalist system once it crosses over into corruption. That's where it is different. The free market isn't being honored, so it isn't capitalism. In this particular case, the government and the corporations have merged and act together - the state itself is the bad actor here. It is the state the allows the monopolies, and the state that acts as an arm of them. In capitalism, the state and the companies are separate. This is where the US is a very non-capitalist country.
-
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Being able to pay off FCC / government to get what you want is a different problem.
It's the core of the issue. It's what changes it from capitalism to the actions of the government. It's not private companies, but the government that's the issue.
-
@black3dynamite said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
FreePress.net is going to sue the FCC and work to get congress to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.
I did not read the article but what use is FCC and Net Neutrality, if Congress can reinstate Net Neutrality rules?
Congress won't be able to get anything done without a shit ton of concessions and or giveaways.
The system will be entirely screwed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Yeehaw capitalism
Technically this is anti-capitalism. The FCC allowing private money to influence the government is as far from capitalism ideals as you can get. That's not an open market.
Capitalism: a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
But not going past the law. The issue here is that corruption was involved. It's not a capitalist system once it crosses over into corruption. That's where it is different. The free market isn't being honored, so it isn't capitalism. In this particular case, the government and the corporations have merged and act together - the state itself is the bad actor here. It is the state the allows the monopolies, and the state that acts as an arm of them. In capitalism, the state and the companies are separate. This is where the US is a very non-capitalist country.
Yeah that makes sense, when looking at it from that direction.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@black3dynamite said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
FreePress.net is going to sue the FCC and work to get congress to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.
I did not read the article but what use is FCC and Net Neutrality, if Congress can reinstate Net Neutrality rules?
Congress won't be able to get anything done without a shit ton of concessions and or giveaways.
The system will be entirely screwed.
While I have little faith in Congress as well, that's truly the only path if you want a permanent legislative "solution."
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Yeehaw capitalism
Technically this is anti-capitalism. The FCC allowing private money to influence the government is as far from capitalism ideals as you can get. That's not an open market.
At the same time, NN is anti capitalism as well, by use of regulation, and not free market to give customers what they are willing to pay for and want - but as I mentioned about... the whole situation is rigged.. so until free market is truly delivered, NN is our current best best.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Yeehaw capitalism
Technically this is anti-capitalism. The FCC allowing private money to influence the government is as far from capitalism ideals as you can get. That's not an open market.
At the same time, NN is anti capitalism as well, by use of regulation, and not free market to give customers what they are willing to pay for and want - but as I mentioned about... the whole situation is rigged.. so until free market is truly delivered, NN is our current best best.
That's not correct. There is no capitalism involved with ISPs as there is no free market. So NN can't be against capitalism as it's not in a situation where that can apply.
-
I am pretty much apolitical these days, and particularly unbiased when it comes to these kinds of things, since I have been in the local ISP world for over 15 years. I have been watching Pai, and have mostly been excited about what he says and what his plans are.
I also always thought NN was bullshit, based on speculation and phantom issues that did not exist. More specific legislation could have addressed issued like throttling, one of the guises the NN supporters used to bring this into effect. It just wasnt a well crafted law, and was widely open to the kind of abuse that would reduce competition.
These are my thoughts, and I am not so stubborn that you couldnt change my mind if I feel you have read and presented a good opposing argument.
1.) You are going to get billed $50 (or whatever) a month from your ISP to stream netflix or get your file sharing throttled again
Pai has said they are going to monitor ISP's and create specific legislation to address it. Basically the guy is ready to do his job, not pass blanket BS legislation that applies archaic telecom laws to the internet.
2.) Small ISP's are going to be supressed
Small ISP's or regional carriers never buy access from Big Telecom. There are hundreds of local access interconnects and Tier 1 providers you've probably never heard of that specialize in this.
Further NN offered nothing to protect small ISPs or promote any kind of growth or competition or reduction of easements.
3.) Your privacy is now at risk
By removing the Title ii application (again, from the 1930's!) the FTC is getting back its authority to regulate data privacy. Something that Title ii removed and failed to assign to the FCC.
4.) Ajit Pai is a (insert explitive)
If you know anything about Tom Wheeler at all, and have listened to him or Pai talk, no right minded internet loving engineer would take Wheeler over Pai. Basically Pai is a guy who is ready to do a great job, serve internet users, and gives fuck all about politics. He wants to be around for a long time, and has been around for 20 years already in the FCC
-
Pai wanted to repeal NN so that he could monitor competition and focus on introducing targeted/modern legislation to prevent things like surcharges for fast Netflix streaming
-
Pai wants to remove easements, another topic we have discussed here that prevent old infrastructure investers (big internet companies) from seeing new competition in their markets. He has visited ISPs like Rocket Fiber in Detroit who are getting fucked by the city on pole access and is preparing new legislation to address the major slow down in infrastructure investment
-
Do you remember when mobile carriers complained earlier this year about T-Mobile streaming and how it violated net neutrality as they weren't paying for data? Pai told them to pound sand, its good for competition and its good for the end user. They wanted to use NN to reduce competition.
Regardless of your political affiliation and ideas this guy wants whats best for the internet, I can't find a single thing he has done that I disagree with.
-
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Regardless of your political affiliation and ideas this guy wants whats best for the internet, I can't find a single thing he has done that I disagree with.
One key thing... he sold out our rights and freedoms. NN is needed to protect freedom of speech, press and the ability to have democracy in the modern era. All that other stuff is... interesting, but that's about it. There are core values of way more importance here.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you know anything about Tom Wheeler at all, and have listened to him or Pai talk, no right minded internet loving engineer would take Wheeler over Pai.
This is the "Mike knows a guy who'll charge twice as much" argument. Pai can't be bad because this other guy was worse! That's not how that works. Maybe they are both awful, I'm okay with that assessment. That Pai is okay, I can't accept.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I also always thought NN was bullshit, based on speculation and phantom issues that did not exist. More specific legislation could have addressed issued like throttling, one of the guises the NN supporters used to bring this into effect. It just wasnt a well crafted law, and was widely open to the kind of abuse that would reduce competition.
There is no system for competition today. They could have retained NN and fixed these things. Removing NN is the issue, failing to fix the other things is an issue, using repealing NN under the excuse of the other things is an issue.
