FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility

Renzatic · Mar 1, 2015

MagnusVonMagnum said:
It's what the Net Neutral people don't want to address because they have no good answer to a problem they don't even seem to know exists. Well, they WILL know about it soon when their 25Mbps connection suddenly runs at 3Mbps. Mobile users will likely notice it first. There simply isn't enough bandwidth to go around to let every single iPhone user watch HD movies on their phones 24/7. It's why there are contractual limits and why so many "unlimited" plans did a quick reversal or have throttling in the contracts now. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.

This won't be a problem because...

...get this...

THAT'S NOT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY DOES!

You see the way the internet is right this second? How you can hit up Netflix, and watch a movie. Go to Facebook, and not wait 5 minutes for it to load because you didn't subscribe to your ISPs Social Network Fast Lane? This is what Net Neutrality does.

The phrase "there is no one more blind than those who refuse to see" comes to mind here. It's not like its hidden information. It's not like the entire internet wasn't initially founded on the idea treating data indiscriminately. There's no excuse for blatant ignorance in this day and age.

You are wrong. You have no point. You have no factual basis to stand your argument on. This isn't opinion. This isn't a my-side vs. your-side thing. You plain and simply don't know what you're talking about, and when you say things like the above quoted, it proves it.

Eraserhead · Mar 1, 2015

Renzatic said:
This won't be a problem because...

...get this...

THAT'S NOT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY DOES!

You see the way the internet is right this second? How you can hit up Netflix, and watch a movie. Go to Facebook, and not wait 5 minutes for it to load because you didn't subscribe to your ISPs Social Network Fast Lane? This is what Net Neutrality does.

The phrase "there is no one more blind than those who refuse to see" comes to mind here. It's not like its hidden information. It's not like the entire internet was initially founded on the idea treating data indiscriminately. There's no excuse for blatant ignorance in this day and age.

You are you wrong. You have no point. You have no factual basis to stand your argument on. This isn't opinion. This isn't a my-side vs. your-side thing. You plain and simply don't know what you're talking about, and when you say things like the above quoted, it proves it.

Fundamentally the belief, held by many American conservatives, that dogma is more important than facts us destroying the country.

You know China, which grows at 10% every year? And how everyone says they are communist anymore? Well that's because they don't let themselves be held back by dogma and they just get **** done.

balamw · Mar 1, 2015

MagnusVonMagnum said:
Live awhile and watch and you'll become jaded in a few years too as they lie, cheat and steal year after year after year.

This is why it seems so awkward to me that so many hold up Ajit Pai as a paragon of truth and independence, when he is a partisan appointee to the FCC and has previously worked deep within the bowels of Verizon and Government. Who does he owe, and whose interests is he representing here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Varadaraj_Pai

Pai is seen as a close ally to broadcasters.

EDIT: The reality is most likely somewhere between "it's all good!" and "the sky is falling!" as he extremes would have you believe.

B

Renzatic · Mar 1, 2015

Eraserhead said:
Fundamentally the belief, held by many American conservatives, that dogma is more important than facts us destroying the country.

You know China, which grows at 10% every year? And how everyone says they are communist anymore? Well that's because they don't let themselves be held back by dogma and they just get **** done.

Well, China takes things to that nth degree, and I have a feeling it's going to bite them in the ass at some point in the future.

But there is some truth in what you say. We're too busy destroying the things that made America great in order to protect it from invisible communists, while the actual communists are building a larger, more flexible capitalist market for themselves.

The irony of it all would be funny, if it weren't so sickening.

Renzatic · Mar 1, 2015

balamw said:
EDIT: The reality is most likely somewhere between "it's all good!" and "the sky is falling!" as he extremes would have you believe.

Even I don't think it's all good. KPOM is probably the only person here who's made a compelling argument against Title II regulation. That's because he's looking at it from a realistic standpoint, that being burdened with regulations does have the potential to stifle market growth and innovation. It's one of the major reasons why the FCC reclassified broadband under Title I a decade back, I believe.

But as for the people thinking these regulations are just an excuse for the government to take over the internet? They're wrong.

Z400Racer37 · Mar 1, 2015

MacNut said:
What the **** are you talking about, nobody owns the internet.

Really? None owns the components that comprise the internet huh? So it was just there? It just existed in nature, waiting to be used? *Facepalm*

MacNut said:
Comcast has NO RIGHT to block Netflix or anything else it wants. They are a pass through of data from the backbone to my computer, nothing more.

BS. No they aren't.

Renzatic said:
The state doesn't own all those networks! There merely regulate the flow of traffic by stating it shouldn't be regulated.

There are pieces of networking hardware that do exist to facilitate the flow of internet traffic that were funded with state money. Not all of it. Pieces here and there.

Renzatic said:
Okay, imagine this. You're an internet startup. You invest capital, get a website made, build a product. It's selling like crazy. Because of the previous rules of net neutrality, all you have to worry about is paying your bandwidth bill per month.

Millions of people around the world rely on this setup, and expect it to work as is.

But then suddenly, net neutrality disappears. ISPs are now allowed to discriminate against your business by restricting your access to your customers. They say you have to pay X amount of money, or you'll be slowed down in favor of your competitors. The price is too high, you can't pay it. You go out of business because your provider restricts access to your customers on their whim over a network that isn't entirely theirs.

That whole scenario is ridiculous.

1. We don't have net neutrality to begin with, and there weren't dire failures of internet startups. Even with the legislated monopolies that the ISPs enjoy, and the balkanization that occurred as a result of that legislation.

2. What incentive would that ISP have to treat their PAYING CUSTOMER like crap? So they can make less money for a living? Yeah.

and

3. If there was a real free market, there would be another ISP who would be able to provide that internet service to that startup, so the original company would lose twice, once by losing the customer for acting like idiots, and two by adding to their competitors revenue. Shame that government legislates local monopolies that way.

Renzatic said:
And what about the networks that restrict your ISPs traffic? That'll cost them money. Your bill goes up. Or the network that's restricting your ISP's traffic? Their bill goes up. In a worst case scenario, it'll be too expensive for startups to do business on what was once a level playing field.

Ridiculous. Competition. Not repeating myself further.

Renzatic said:
...and you're making the free market claim? You're advocating destroying a free market in order to allow a handful of private corporations to control it in the name of the free market.

You don't even know what "free" means apparently. You don't achieve a free market by forcing people or companies to do things against their free will. Free means the LACK of coercion, not the lack of coercion unless it benefits society as a whole and then you have a right to loot whomever you'd like because who cares about their right to their life or their property. Get it?

Renzatic said:
I swear to god, all you people are so anxious to jump in on the anti-government circle jerk, you fail to realize all you're ending up doing is pissing in your own faces.

Pretty high level of ignorance in your own phraseology...

Eraserhead said:
I did. It seemed to me that you'd misunderstood the issue, as you seem to have shown a complete misunderstanding about how internet access and free markets work in the real world.

Just because you say I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't make it true. You have 0 evidence that free markets tear themselves apart, and I have endless and irrefutable evidence that it:

1. Leads to massive wealth creation.

and

2. Is the only economic system that can protect individual rights.

Eraserhead said:
Which countries were "Socialist/Fascist/Communist" before World War I. Especially Socialist and Communist.

Um. How about any country in Europe? or China? or Russia? or India? Basically any country that wasn't America had SOME FORM of centrally controlled/insanely regulated political/economic environment.

Eraserhead said:
The Americans haven't done a whole lot of growing the middle class out since the 1970's. And the ordinary man on the street isn't doing so well.

Americans have never grown from the middle out, nor has any country. It's impossible. The way in which the standard of living rises is by investing in new products/technologies. once the new technology has been created, production can then be ramped up, manufacturing jobs can be created, and productivity can rise. All of these things follow the savings and INVESTMENT and DEVELOPMENT of a businessman. The workers are doing what they're paid to do, and they get to enjoy an increased standard of living because of the power of someone else's mind to rationalize and bring into existence things which didn't exist before. I'd be willing to bet that no one on this forum could build an iPhone from nothing, but most of us were capable of buying the thing that the engineers at Apple were able to create. All we had to do was pay a couple hundred bucks. Incredible.

Standards of living rise a the top first. Then production increases and technologies get cheaper and cheaper, and more and more people can afford them, thus trickling down. Not out from the middle.

TO ALL:

I see your garbage arguments, and raise you Mark Cuban. Because he's smarter, richer, and more successful than any of us. So just shut up and learn something from someone who ACTUALLY knows what they're talking about for once. Freaking know it alls. *Facepalm*

And unless I don't see it as completely hopeless, I'm done trying to talk sense into people who don't even care to be honest with themselves. If SOMEHOW you think you know more about this than Mark does, then I think you're probably a little WAY far beyond repair. /Done

Eraserhead · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
Really? None owns the components that comprise the internet huh? So it was just there? It just existed in nature, waiting to be used? *Facepalm*

BS. No they aren't.

There are pieces of networking hardware that do exist to facilitate the flow of internet traffic that were funded with state money. Not all of it. Pieces here and there.

That whole scenario is ridiculous.

1. We don't have net neutrality to begin with, and there weren't dire failures of internet startups. Even with the legislated monopolies that the ISPs enjoy, and the balkanization that occurred as a result of that legislation.

2. What incentive would that ISP have to treat their PAYING CUSTOMER like crap? So they can make less money for a living? Yeah.

and

3. If there was a real free market, there would be another ISP who would be able to provide that internet service to that startup, so the original company would lose twice, once by losing the customer for acting like idiots, and two by adding to their competitors revenue. Shame that government legislates local monopolies that way.

Ridiculous. Competition. Not repeating myself further.

You don't even know what "free" means apparently. You don't achieve a free market by forcing people or companies to do things against their free will. Free means the LACK of coercion, not the lack of coercion unless it benefits society as a whole and then you have a right to loot whomever you'd like because who cares about their right to their life or their property. Get it?

Pretty high level of ignorance in your own phraseology...

Just because you say I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't make it true. You have 0 evidence that free markets tear themselves apart, and I have endless and irrefutable evidence that it:

1. Leads to massive wealth creation.

and

2. Is the only economic system that can protect individual rights.

Um. How about any country in Europe? or China? or Russia? or India? Basically any country that wasn't America had SOME FORM of centrally controlled/insanely regulated political/economic environment.

Americans have never grown from the middle out, nor has any country. It's impossible. The way in which the standard of living rises is by investing in new products/technologies. once the new technology has been created, production can then be ramped up, manufacturing jobs can be created, and productivity can rise. All of these things follow the savings and INVESTMENT and DEVELOPMENT of a businessman. The workers are doing what they're paid to do, and they get to enjoy an increased standard of living because of the power of someone else's mind to rationalize and bring into existence things which didn't exist before. I'd be willing to bet that no one on this forum could build an iPhone from nothing, but most of us were capable of buying the thing that the engineers at Apple were able to create. All we had to do was pay a couple hundred bucks. Incredible.

Standards of living rise a the top first. Then production increases and technologies get cheaper and cheaper, and more and more people can afford them, thus trickling down. Not out from the middle.

TO ALL:

I see your garbage arguments, and raise you Mark Cuban. Because he's smarter, richer, and more successful than any of us. So just shut up and learn something from someone who ACTUALLY knows what they're talking about for once. Freaking know it alls. *Facepalm*

And unless I don't see it as completely hopeless, I'm done trying to talk sense into people who don't even care to be honest with themselves. If SOMEHOW you think you know more about this than Mark does, then I think you're probably a little WAY far beyond repair. /Done

I'm very sorry to have to say this, but you are quite simply wrong about net neutrality. Please stop digging.

----------

Renzatic said:
KPOM is probably the only person here who's made a compelling argument against Title II regulation. That's because he's looking at it from a realistic standpoint, that being burdened with regulations does have the potential to stifle market growth and innovation. It's one of the major reasons why the FCC reclassified broadband under Title I a decade back, I believe.

That is certainly a valid point in general.

Renzatic · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
That whole scenario is ridiculous.

1. We don't have net neutrality to begin with, and there weren't dire failures of internet startups. Even with the legislated monopolies that the ISPs enjoy, and the balkanization that occurred as a result of that legislation.

2. What incentive would that ISP have to treat their PAYING CUSTOMER like crap? So they can make less money for a living? Yeah.

and

3. If there was a real free market, there would be another ISP who would be able to provide that internet service to that startup, so the original company would lose twice, once by losing the customer for acting like idiots, and two by adding to their competitors revenue. Shame that government legislates local monopolies that way.

WRONG!

The internet initially functioned over telephone lines, which is data neutral. The first ISPs were classified as common carriers, and were therefore under Net Neutrality restrictions. The internet as it was initially built was founded on the idea of a open network to facilitate growth.

Even when the ISPs were classified under Title I, that data neutrality restriction was still in place. The only problem was, the FCC couldn't enforce that on Title I's, only Title II's. They ended up being sued by Verizon over it, and lost.

We've only been functioning without net neutrality for 5 years now.

Done indeed.

Now Point 3 is actually very true. We need more competition. Unfortunately, the FCC didn't go full Title II with the ISPs, so they still get to enjoy their local monopolies granted them by both state and federal government.

But at least we don't have to worry about them charging us extra because Netflix is popular enough they can milk both them and us for extra money.

...wow, it really is like Obamacare for the internet. Does a little bit, but doesn't do enough.

You don't even know what "free" means apparently. You don't achieve a free market by forcing people or companies to do things against their free will. Free means the LACK of coercion, not the lack of coercion unless it benefits society as a whole and then you have a right to loot whomever you'd like because who cares about their right to their life or their property. Get it?

Yeah, but if you find yourself in a situation where a monopolized company providing a necessary service is doing the coercing, then it's not really free even then, is it?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You might have to have someone coercing a big company into not coercing other, smaller companies in order to have a free market.

balamw · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
2. What incentive would that ISP have to treat their PAYING CUSTOMER like crap? So they can make less money for a living? Yeah.

To me this is actually illustrative of the bigger problem. Today, most broadband customers in the USA are served by one of four companies. Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T or Verizon.

Each of those companies also have other businesses that directly compete with internet based services.

For example, AT&T has a vested interest in selling you voice telephony service, so they have a vested interest in NOT having their customers use VOIP.

Comcast owns NBC/Universal which in turn is a partner in Hulu. They have a vested interest in having you consume more of their product, even if it is at the expense of original programming on Netflix or Amazon Prime Video.

EDIT: By the interoperable nature of the internet the new startup may actually NOT be their customer and so treating newSkype or newNetflix like crap isn't treating their customer like crap. It only hurts the final consumer.

B

kds1 · Mar 1, 2015

I can't believe this thread has over 500 posts. Seriously? I suppose all these people who think the reclassifying of internet service is bad, also think that telephone service should be unclassified? And while we are at it, how about gas, electricity and water? I've thought that internet service should be treated as a utility in the same manner as the others since the '90's. It's an essential service. Yes, it is. In the year 2015 (and for a long time now) it is.

And not only that....but if you can't afford it, you should be able to get help with that. In the same way that we have Universal Lifeline Telephone service, and HEAP (Heat Energy Assistance Program).

samiwas · Mar 1, 2015

nsayer said:
My own take on this is that all told, net neutrality is a good thing.

But I suspect our bills are going to go up.

My bill with Comcast went up every couple of months as is. And the federal regulatory fees on it were 8¢. Cents. Eight cents.

Now, you are probably right. Your bill actually probably will go up. And I can guarantee you that your cable company will say it's because of the new regulations. That's what corporations do. They raise prices given any chance to blame it on something else, in order to pad their own pockets. That's "American Capitalism". My old health insurer raised our premiums by some 20% when Obamacare was mentioned. Not when it was implemented. Not when it was being discussed. When it was first mentioned. They raised premiums and blamed it on Obamacare.

----------

MagnusVonMagnum said:
I mean the Internet has existed since '50s/60s really and they just NOW realized NONE of the people working in that organization for the past 50+ years had a freaking CLUE about ANYTHING that it was classified incorrectly all that time? That's a load of horse manure and you KNOW it.

You're right. It is horse manure. Because it's 100% factually incorrect and proves just how little you know about this subject. You have repeatedly trotted out falsehood after falsehood under the pretense that you are somehow more enlightened. But, when they're all falsehoods, it just makes you look inept.

Z400Racer37 · Mar 1, 2015

Eraserhead said:
I'm very sorry to have to say this, but you are quite simply wrong about net neutrality. Please stop digging.

Wrong.

Renzatic said:
WRONG!

The internet initially functioned over telephone lines, which is data neutral. The first ISPs were classified as common carriers, and were therefore under Net Neutrality restrictions. The internet as it was initially built was founded on the idea of a open network to facilitate growth.

Even when the ISPs were classified under Title I, that data neutrality restriction was still in place. The only problem was, the FCC couldn't enforce that on Title I's, only Title II's. They ended up being sued by Verizon over it, and lost.

We've only been functioning without net neutrality for 5 years now.

Done indeed.

Now Point 3 is actually very true. We need more competition. Unfortunately, the FCC didn't go full Title II with the ISPs, so they still get to enjoy their local monopolies granted them by both state and federal government.

But at least we don't have to worry about them charging us extra because Netflix is popular enough they can milk both them and us for extra money.

...wow, it really is like Obamacare for the internet. Does a little bit, but doesn't do enough.

Yeah, but if you find yourself in a situation where a monopolized company providing a necessary service is doing the coercing, then it's not really free even then, is it?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You might have to have someone coercing a big company into not coercing other, smaller companies in order to have a free market.

Wrong.

And if the service is so "necessary" then pay for it, thank all the companies and people who were involved in making it available in the first place, and stop complaining. There's no such thing as a company "Coercing" you to pay more. They don't have a gun to force you to pay more, you can choose whether or not its worth it to you. The initiation of coercion is wrong in any context. No exceptions.

There is only one type of monopoly that can exist in a free market, and that is a company that established a monopoly by being more innovative or efficient than any of its competitors. The type of monopoly we see with the cable companies today would not exist if it weren't for the legislation that prohibits new entrants into the space. So no, companies can't "coerce" you into paying as much as they want.

balamw said:
To me this is actually illustrative of the bigger problem. Today, most broadband customers in the USA are served by one of four companies. Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T or Verizon.

Each of those companies also have other businesses that directly compete with internet based services.

For example, AT&T has a vested interest in selling you voice telephony service, so they have a vested interest in NOT having their customers use VOIP.

Comcast owns NBC/Universal which in turn is a partner in Hulu. They have a vested interest in having you consume more of their product, even if it is at the expense of original programming on Netflix or Amazon Prime Video.

EDIT: By the interoperable nature of the internet the new startup may actually NOT be their customer and so treating newSkype or newNetflix like crap isn't treating their customer like crap. It only hurts the final consumer.

B

So in a free market there would be competitors who didn't have these incentives, who would then enter with lower rates, and offer VOIP or Netflix or whatever, and then the others would be forced to cut rates or lose customers. The answer here is not more government oversight. And as Mark said in the link above, do you really want the agency that is still investigating "Nipplegate" 8 YEARS later regulating this stuff? I'm not sure anyone can honestly be that insane.

samiwas · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
You said it yourself, if FedEx owns the road then it belongs to them. It's not their property so long as it serves you or the public best, it's their property regardless of how they use it or how it does or doesn't benefit you. That's the nature of a RIGHT. If you have such a lack of respect for property rights, then why don't you advocate for legislation to allow UPS trucks to use FedEx shipping facilities while your at it? What's the difference between their privately owned pavement in front of the shipping facility, which is not rightfully theirs and that they would have no right to charge UPS or anyone else for using, and the shipping facility itself? Should the shipping facility be theirs just because you don't need to drive on it? Wouldn't it be more efficient to force FedEx to share that facility with UPS trucks, and therefore justify the removal of FedEx's property rights? How about their cash on their balance sheet? What if society has a better use for it? Should they seize it instead of just letting it sit there making the corporations richer and richer at the expense of all of us??

Then what you are advocating for is not what the internet was. You are advocating for a commoditized network where companies can hold the network hostage for their own gain.

Let's use your FedEx example. You pay $20 to ship a very important package from your house to your mom. Once FedEx has the package, they get it halfway, then call you to demand another $100 or they will not take your package any further, or else they will just take three weeks to deliver it. Still like the idea?

That is the complete antithesis of the idea and purpose of the internet. Your vision of the internet would be an utter failure.

Renzatic · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
Wrong.

Wow. Breibart.

Okay, for one thing, how will the change to Title II "change TV as we know it"? TV is already under Title II.

Secondly, literally everything in that article runs counter to reality, and you're a sucker for believing it.

MacNut · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
Really? None owns the components that comprise the internet huh? So it was just there? It just existed in nature, waiting to be used?

Nobody can claim ownership of the internet. Sure there are companies that run the backbone but they don't own the data that runs through it. I might own a server, you might own a switch. All of it is connected through the massive world wide web. Nobody owns Earth, nobody owns the internet.

The Internet has no centralized governance in either technological implementation or policies for access and usage; each constituent network sets its own policies.[8] Only the overreaching definitions of the two principal name spaces in the Internet, the Internet Protocol address space and the Domain Name System (DNS), are directed by a maintainer organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The technical underpinning and standardization of the core protocols is an activity of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), a non-profit organization of loosely affiliated international participants that anyone may associate with by contributing technical expertise

samiwas · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
Oh, and by the way, how's that "Grow from the middle out" crap working for you for the last 6 years? Employment rate within 1% of where it bottomed at the depths of the financial crisis? Good stuff. Really good idea. Definitely works better than trickle down.

Where are you getting this from? What are the unemployment numbers now compared to their lowest?

Treq · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
Did you even read the post? Try that.

Again, you're assuming all data on the internet would be treated equally by saying that once you have an internet connection that you should be able to hook up to Netflix or whatever you want and download without discrimination. So long as you or anyone else is attempting to use their network utilities, Comcast has every right to charge extra for whatever reason they want, or no reason at all. It's their network infrastructure you're using.

You said it yourself, if FedEx owns the road then it belongs to them. It's not their property so long as it serves you or the public best, it's their property regardless of how they use it or how it does or doesn't benefit you. That's the nature of a RIGHT. If you have such a lack of respect for property rights, then why don't you advocate for legislation to allow UPS trucks to use FedEx shipping facilities while your at it? What's the difference between their privately owned pavement in front of the shipping facility, which is not rightfully theirs and that they would have no right to charge UPS or anyone else for using, and the shipping facility itself? Should the shipping facility be theirs just because you don't need to drive on it? Wouldn't it be more efficient to force FedEx to share that facility with UPS trucks, and therefore justify the removal of FedEx's property rights? How about their cash on their balance sheet? What if society has a better use for it? Should they seize it instead of just letting it sit there making the corporations richer and richer at the expense of all of us??

BS. Just because you say something, doesn't mean its true.

Yeah, right. Hey, ever heard of a country called, um, America? If free markets are so bad, then why the hell are we here? How exactly is it that you're reading this screen right now? Typing on that thing in front of you? Is it because some bureaucrat controlled all the assets and resources that went into making the device you're using? Interesting delusion.

Hey. Question. If free markets are so evil, and they result in monopolies, and "Robber Barons" etc. then why is it exactly that during the late 1800's - early 1900's so many people from around the world were emigrating from their Socialist/Fascist/Communist home countries, where they were literally starving to death from famine, and immigrating to the United States where there were almost completely free markets, with almost no regulation to speak of, where they proceeded to not only survive, but to thrive? Let's hear that one Nash. Really...

Oh, and by the way, how's that "Grow from the middle out" crap working for you for the last 6 years? Employment rate within 1% of where it bottomed at the depths of the financial crisis? Good stuff. Really good idea. Definitely works better than trickle down.

So yeah, I know how the internet works, but more importantly, I know how RIGHTS work, and you don't have a RIGHT to tell private companies how they are going to use their assets. Whether or not it benefits you to do so isCOMPLETELY irrelevant. Do your best to grasp that.

First, All data will be treated the same... thats the point of this whole thing.

Second, there is a little thing call right of way laws. Fedex would be breaking the law by blocking access to another's property.

Third, Yes The free market is a myth. Good balanced regulation is what fosters good competition. Without it you either get monopolies or you get a nash equilibrium issue where it is in the best interest of the business to not try to compete with a competitor because both will loose.

Fourth, the republicans have been forcing tax cuts for the rich all six of those years and it doesn't work. The stimulus package that passed years ago would have worked better if it didn't include the largest tax cut in american history, and instead included a jobs program to fix the country's infrastructure. Once again that was due to republicans forcing it into the bill.

Lastly, yes we do have the right to regulate their networks to ensure fair business practices. It's kinda exactly what laws are for.

Man, there is just so much you don't know. Yet you think you do. Maybe turn off Fox "news" and go back to school. Or just stop embarrassing yourself.

Edit: Another observation; You seem to see the world in only black or white. Either its Free market, or communism. Is there no in-between for you? Cant we have a little regulation to ensure a fair market without going all the way to communism? Can't there be a world where we all get together and set out some rules so everyone can play fairly, or is it only survival of the fittest for you?

samiwas · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
]1. We don't have net neutrality to begin with, and there weren't dire failures of internet startups. Even with the legislated monopolies that the ISPs enjoy, and the balkanization that occurred as a result of that legislation.

2. What incentive would that ISP have to treat their PAYING CUSTOMER like crap? So they can make less money for a living? Yeah.

So, then by your very own admittance, this regulation won't change anything and is just to have something on the books in case something does happen. Right?

Seems pretty pointless that you're so bent out of shape about it.

balamw · Mar 1, 2015

Z400Racer37 said:
So in a free market there would be competitors who didn't have these incentives, who would then enter with lower rates, and offer VOIP or Netflix or whatever, and then the others would be forced to cut rates or lose customers. The answer here is not more government oversight. And as Mark said in the link above, do you really want the agency that is still investigating "Nipplegate" 8 YEARS later regulating this stuff? I'm not sure anyone can honestly be that insane.

Incentives? Who said anything about incentives?

The mega corporations that control the last mile do so not because they have any special government incentives, but because they are already huge. The "free market" is what lets a content distributor like Comcast, buy a content creator like NBC/Universal and thus put them in direct competition with future Netflixes.

So now the playing field is stacked, with Comcast already having the upper hand. What "free market" again?

Oh yeah, the free market lets the Baby Bells merge with each other to form two companies even bigger and more entrenched in more businesses than their predecessor ever was. In some places and business areas they may compete, but in most they have the exact same monopoly that they had before.

The "free market" cannot exist without the infrastructure of laws and regulation. Be it something as simple as currency or weights and measures or patents or things far more complicated like the FDA.

B

----------

Treq said:
Third, Yes The free market is a myth. Good balanced regulation is what fosters good competition. Without it you either get monopolies or you get a nash equilibrium issue where it is in the best interest of the business to not try to compete with a competitor because both will loose.

Exactly. Just like boxing or UFC are far more interesting because they are regulated. Unfettered competition isn't good for the participants or the spectators.

B

CFreymarc · Mar 2, 2015

Robert.Walter said:
The only reason paid fast lanes existed was so that those controlling the distribution pipes could raise the costs of the streaming providers in order to protect their TV- and Movie-package cash cows.

And that my friend is what keeps the Internet free and independent of government regulations. When the full document of these new regulations comes out, one of two things are happening.

1) These Obamanet regulations are beaten back and repealed like the ACA will be in a few years.

2) The Internet is replaced with the concept of IP addresses, name servers and dedicated broadband obsoleted. It is replaced with a technology that is impossible to throttle and regulate.

Eraserhead · Mar 2, 2015

CFreymarc said:
And that my friend is what keeps the Internet free and independent of government regulations. When the full document of these new regulations comes out, one of two things are happening.

1) These Obamanet regulations are beaten back and repealed like the ACA will be in a few years.

2) The Internet is replaced with the concept of IP addresses, name servers and dedicated broadband obsoleted. It is replaced with a technology that is impossible to throttle and regulate.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about.

CFreymarc · Mar 2, 2015

tbrinkma said:
Yeah, sure. Because now internet connections are Title II, the government can control what is said over internet connections. Just like they can over *phone lines*, another example of Title II regulated telecommunications.

Seriously, folks, where do you come up with this stuff?

Fifty-one years ago at the 1964 World's Fair, AT&T showed off Picturephone. That freaked out David Sarnoff (the founder of RCA) and his broadcast equipment empire.

AT&T even had plans to promote the creations of small "Picturephone studios" at the fraction of a cost of building a small television station with no need for an FCC license. Sarnoff and his crew got AT&T regulated into Title II where they couldn't do that business Picturephone media plan. Thus, Picturephone died a slow death as a video conference tool that became a fad.

Where do I get this? Look at the Congressional record when LBJ (a crony President if there ever been) was in the White House. In fact, this is one of the origins of the name YouTube (your *Picturephone* television tube) and why their original logo is an old 60's television. YouTube is the revival of a fifty year old media business plan.

Now, Sarnoff's corporate descendants at the NAB (National Association of Broadcasting) are behind these new Internet regulations. They are trying to keep corporate television networks relevant and keep control of the mass media.

The NAB took a big hit in the Bush Administration when they lost their VHF spectrum to wireless broadband services. Under Obama, these media cronies are getting their licks in.

CFreymarc · Mar 2, 2015

Eraserhead said:
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.

I'll take that as a complement. I have cashed in on a lot of new business plans Mr. Crony told me I had no idea what I was talking about.

In a few years, you may be living the quote below if you don't respect those who don't care about making mortgage payments.

I could not become anything; neither good nor bad; neither a scoundrel nor an honest man; neither a hero nor an insect. And now I am eking out my days in my corner, taunting myself with the bitter and entirely useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot seriously become anything, that only a fool can become something.

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground

Eraserhead · Mar 2, 2015

CFreymarc said:
Fifty-one years ago at the 1964 World's Fair, AT&T showed off Picturephone. That freaked out David Sarnoff (the founder of RCA) and his broadcast equipment empire.

AT&T even had plans to promote the creations of small "Picturephone studios" at the fraction of a cost of building a small television station with no need for an FCC license. Sarnoff and his crew got AT&T regulated into Title II where they couldn't do that business Picturephone media plan. Thus, Picturephone died a slow death as a video conference tool that became a fad.

Where do I get this? Look at the Congressional record when LBJ (a crony President if there ever been) was in the White House. In fact, this is one of the origins of the name YouTube (your *Picturephone* television tube) and why their original logo is an old 60's television. YouTube is the revival of a fifty year old media business plan.

Now, Sarnoff's corporate descendants at the NAB (National Association of Broadcasting) are behind these new Internet regulations. They are trying to keep corporate television networks relevant and keep control of the mass media.

The NAB took a big hit in the Bush Administration when they lost their VHF spectrum to wireless broadband services. Under Obama, these media cronies are getting their licks in.

How big is video conferencing even now?

Is it actually used by anyone except lovers?

----------

CFreymarc said:
I'll take that as a complement. I have cashed in on a lot of new business plans Mr. Crony told me I had no idea what I was talking about.

That doesn't mean you know everything.

In a few years, you may be living the quote below if you don't respect those who don't care about making mortgage payments.

Who are those who don't care about making mortgage payments? People who still live with their parents? Those who inherited money to buy their houses in full?

Happybunny · Mar 2, 2015

Eraserhead said:
Those who inherited money to buy their houses in full?

I'll have you know that I deeply resent those words, because they are true.

FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility

Suspended

macrumors G4

Moderator emeritus

Suspended

Suspended

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G4

Suspended

Moderator emeritus

Suspended

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

Suspended

macrumors Core

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

Moderator emeritus

Suspended

macrumors G4

Suspended

Suspended

macrumors G4

macrumors 68000

Our Staff