FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
This I agree exists on both sides of the argument. If someone's pockets wasnt getting lined no action would be taken on either side.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
What power do we even hold when they can overturn something 83% of the population wholeheartedly supports though. Seems insane.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
There is no service to the internets end users to call up the PUC and say "hey my p2p is getting blocked".
Wait a min - I thought it was stated that there were tons of complaints being lodged. So where their complaints or weren't there? If there were - what's the issue? Now, assuming there were complaints, if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again.. and we can't talk about that, it's its own thing. And just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws - it means we the people need to hold them more accountable.
If you read article I posted a couple times above you will find that there are many loopholes around this. There are zero cases where someone has successfully stopped abuses using NN, in fact it enables specific abuses. They had to account for internet providers (Family Connect) who provide filtering services for religious reason, resulting in unintended consequences.
Back to 2005 these kinds of laws were proposed with the then FCC staff warning that it would not lead to any meaningful protections, and it is definitely a huge tax on small ISP's.
I think if you watch Pai's video you will see that he has been involved with this for over a decade and has a very sound point of view.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again..
Its unfortunate that Pai didnt become chair before this political climate arrived. All of this opposition is by people who have no clue what dealing with the FCC is like. They will soon find that everything the FCC does is never clear law and the reason telecom lawyers are so expensive. It doesnt even matter what the regulation says, it only matters what you can win in court.
Pai sees that these regs wont actually work, and has good ideas about how to make things work. People are shooting him first, asking questions later.
I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the ISP world has been closely following all of this for years out of personal interest. Where was the outrage in 2010, 2005? It was a very calm debate without a clear answer.
-
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
just because the government isn't following the laws they enacted, doesn't mean we don't need the laws
It's fuzzy. What is the point of something that serves no purpose other than just existing?
You've missed my point - it's not that it exists only to exist - there is corruption. We (the people) need to demand and fix the corruption.
What power do we even hold when they can overturn something 83% of the population wholeheartedly supports though. Seems insane.
Well, luckily we don't live by the popular vote, the country would be in total caos... Our elected leaders need to follow what we want, or we don't re elect them.
Sadly, the public cares so little that they don't vote this way in reality.
-
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you read article I posted a couple times above
haven't had time yet.
-
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again..
Its unfortunate that Pai didnt become chair before this political climate arrived. All of this opposition is by people who have no clue what dealing with the FCC is like. They will soon find that everything the FCC does is never clear law and the reason telecom lawyers are so expensive. It doesnt even matter what the regulation says, it only matters what you can win in court.
Pai sees that these regs wont actually work, and has good ideas about how to make things work. People are shooting him first, asking questions later.
I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the ISP world has been closely following all of this for years out of personal interest. Where was the outrage in 2010, 2005? It was a very calm debate without a clear answer.
Are you now trying to tell me that he can't fix it without removing the current laws/rules first? I find this unlikely. he could write new rules/laws and specifically say - the old rule/law no longer is valid, this takes it's place.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the ISP world has been closely following all of this for years out of personal interest. Where was the outrage in 2010, 2005? It was a very calm debate without a clear answer.
The world is a vastly different place today. Video streaming has put a HUGE strain on ISP connections, unlike almost anything we've seen before.
I'm not sure about your ISP, but Cox sold - unlimited internet for x dollars a month. that's no longer the case. Now everyone has a 1 TB cap or less - or you buy more download capacity.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again..
Its unfortunate that Pai didnt become chair before this political climate arrived. All of this opposition is by people who have no clue what dealing with the FCC is like. They will soon find that everything the FCC does is never clear law and the reason telecom lawyers are so expensive. It doesnt even matter what the regulation says, it only matters what you can win in court.
Pai sees that these regs wont actually work, and has good ideas about how to make things work. People are shooting him first, asking questions later.
I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the ISP world has been closely following all of this for years out of personal interest. Where was the outrage in 2010, 2005? It was a very calm debate without a clear answer.
Are you now trying to tell me that he can't fix it without removing the current laws/rules first? I find this unlikely. he could write new rules/laws and specifically say - the old rule/law no longer is valid, this takes it's place.
Correct, an example of a MUCH better approach would be one like Denmark. Literally, look to the vikings! This is the direction we should be heading...
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-layton-alternatives-to-regulation-v1.pdf
Abstract
The diversity of regulatory structure between countries provides opportunities to compare
government’s role and performance in different settings. This study presents such an analysis,
looking at telecommunications regulation in Denmark and the United States. We show that
Denmark is a leader in telecom services both in Europe and around globe; however, whereas the
United States has the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Denmark lacks such a
centralized, proscriptive, omnipresent regulator. We find several specific ways in which US
policymakers could benefit by learning from Denmark and we recommend moving toward a
more politically cooperative, market-led, and technology-neutral framework. -
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again..
Its unfortunate that Pai didnt become chair before this political climate arrived. All of this opposition is by people who have no clue what dealing with the FCC is like. They will soon find that everything the FCC does is never clear law and the reason telecom lawyers are so expensive. It doesnt even matter what the regulation says, it only matters what you can win in court.
Pai sees that these regs wont actually work, and has good ideas about how to make things work. People are shooting him first, asking questions later.
I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the ISP world has been closely following all of this for years out of personal interest. Where was the outrage in 2010, 2005? It was a very calm debate without a clear answer.
Are you now trying to tell me that he can't fix it without removing the current laws/rules first? I find this unlikely. he could write new rules/laws and specifically say - the old rule/law no longer is valid, this takes it's place.
Correct, an example of a MUCH better approach would be one like Denmark. Literally, look to the vikings! This is the direction we should be heading...
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-layton-alternatives-to-regulation-v1.pdf
Abstract
The diversity of regulatory structure between countries provides opportunities to compare
government’s role and performance in different settings. This study presents such an analysis,
looking at telecommunications regulation in Denmark and the United States. We show that
Denmark is a leader in telecom services both in Europe and around globe; however, whereas the
United States has the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Denmark lacks such a
centralized, proscriptive, omnipresent regulator. We find several specific ways in which US
policymakers could benefit by learning from Denmark and we recommend moving toward a
more politically cooperative, market-led, and technology-neutral framework.I think we can all agree that we want the high lighted stuff.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
if the FCC wasn't doing anything about them as was required - well that's corruption again..
Its unfortunate that Pai didnt become chair before this political climate arrived. All of this opposition is by people who have no clue what dealing with the FCC is like. They will soon find that everything the FCC does is never clear law and the reason telecom lawyers are so expensive. It doesnt even matter what the regulation says, it only matters what you can win in court.
Pai sees that these regs wont actually work, and has good ideas about how to make things work. People are shooting him first, asking questions later.
I find it hard to believe that anyone outside of the ISP world has been closely following all of this for years out of personal interest. Where was the outrage in 2010, 2005? It was a very calm debate without a clear answer.
Are you now trying to tell me that he can't fix it without removing the current laws/rules first? I find this unlikely. he could write new rules/laws and specifically say - the old rule/law no longer is valid, this takes it's place.
Correct, an example of a MUCH better approach would be one like Denmark. Literally, look to the vikings! This is the direction we should be heading...
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-layton-alternatives-to-regulation-v1.pdf
Abstract
The diversity of regulatory structure between countries provides opportunities to compare
government’s role and performance in different settings. This study presents such an analysis,
looking at telecommunications regulation in Denmark and the United States. We show that
Denmark is a leader in telecom services both in Europe and around globe; however, whereas the
United States has the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Denmark lacks such a
centralized, proscriptive, omnipresent regulator. We find several specific ways in which US
policymakers could benefit by learning from Denmark and we recommend moving toward a
more politically cooperative, market-led, and technology-neutral framework.I think we can all agree that we want the high lighted stuff.
The synopsis is the the FCC has fulfilled its obligation of liberalizing the telecom market and that its staff and resources should be reorganized elsewhere. By removing regulation they propelled the country as a global leader in internet access in what is otherwise a difficult geographical area to serve.
They have many internet providers and one large provider that was stated owned until being privatized in the late nineties. By removing all the regulation they went from nearly last to nearly first in the world for internet access per capita and internet speeds/pricing.
Because there are no regulations and easements to support the monopolies who are "throttling" in the US today, they fostered competition and even today it is easy to enter and compete in the market.
We read about them a lot in recent years while researching FTTH (fiber to residential) and its easy to see how, even with big $$$ its nearly impossible to transition from WISP to an actual fiber provider.
Just an alternative point of view to the idea that the internet will die without being "Saved" by the FCC and regulations.
-
The throttling has begun!
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The throttling has begun!
Your post was number 666.... the end has begun...
-
I wonder how this is going to affect the media industry with them being able to legally block content
-
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I wonder how this is going to affect the media industry with them being able to legally block content
You won't know because you'll never see the content from the media. The "Fake News" outlets of the world will literally be closed down because they'll be stuck to traditional mediums.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I wonder how this is going to affect the media industry with them being able to legally block content
You won't know because you'll never see the content from the media. The "Fake News" outlets of the world will literally be closed down because they'll be stuck to traditional mediums.
Traditional meaning what? FOX and CNN?
-
@bigbear you seem to also be missing the entire point of NN rules that were enacted in 2015. Because the US has granted ISPs unlimited monopoly power on internet infrastructure, there can be no free market.
Because the ISPs have zero competition, these rules need to exist.
And seriously, you think Pai is doing a good job? That he has your best interest in mind with this? You are either trolling or completely irrational.
You also think Trump is a good President and not a lifelong conman and fraudster? -
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@wirestyle22 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I wonder how this is going to affect the media industry with them being able to legally block content
You won't know because you'll never see the content from the media. The "Fake News" outlets of the world will literally be closed down because they'll be stuck to traditional mediums.
Traditional meaning what? FOX and CNN?
Traditional as in OTA tv or new papers. Digital outlets (websites) can (and likely) will be buried in legal fees / bottlenecked performance for any person trying to access a website that contains objectionable content to the Corporate overlords.
