So explain to me how my facts are wrong.
I already did. You don't listen. You posted a bunch of information that doesn't make your point at all, as usual.
For example, (
https://ting.com/blog/getting-straight-about-common-carriers-and-title-ii/):
This article makes it very clear it's pushing for Title 2 action. How does that prove it was ALREADY Title 2 since the Internet's inception like your post CLAIMED? The
Internet itself (information stored on servers) was never Title2 even as Arpanet. The
connections to other computers (transmission lines) might be considered that in a sense ONLY BECAUSE THEY USED THE TELEPHONE LINES initially, but there was NEVER any regulation of the Internet content or information during that period you claim was regulated. The information on the Internet is not stored on phone lines. It's stored on computers and computer storage devices. Only the transmission of information could have been regulated to begin with an it never was.
You are just trying to make it SOUND like "we've always had regulation" and "why didn't you complain back then?'. BECAUSE IT WASN'T REGULATED in the manner I'm talking about and the manner they are proposing it to be regulated now. What part of that can't you seem to understand??? SO WHAT is the phone lines fall under the FCC? The Internet is more than the phone lines, especially these days. Cable has NEVER been a common carrier and I see no reason for them to be able to call it that now. It's always been a private transmission service you PAY to access. Telephones trace back to the telegram days and it was a highly regulated virtual monopoly (ma bell) and authorized to be regulated by the FCC in 1934. But it actually became LESS regulated over time, not more regulated!
The deregulation of DSL in 2005 proves this further. Telephone line are no longer as relevant as they once were in the modern world where you have multiple methods of communication available from Cell, Satellite, Cable and Radio. If it's not over the public airwaves, it should not be Title 2 any longer. This decision to regulate everything under Title 2 is a complete reversal and a full re-regulation of services including ones that were never regulated as such. But you act like it's a good thing for reasons unproven.
Worse yet, your 2nd link (
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/dsl-was-never-regulated-oceania-has-always-be) shows that they
DEREGULATED DSL that actually does use the phone lines! You are only making your case WORSE with that link!
Again, (
http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050805a.asp). Same thing. You show the remaining telephone links are DEREGULATED in 2005. You ask me why didn't I complain back in 2005 earlier? BECAUSE THEY DEREGULATED DSL (which I never used anyway), not regulated it.
WHY THE HELL WOULD I COMPLAIN ABOUT DEREGULATION? Your arguments
make no sense.
Your next two links are useless as well. Volunteering to be regulated for tax breaks? WTF does that have to do with anything? A Wikipedia page telling what it is? I think you just posted links to look like you actually did some work. LOL. How about RELEVANT links that actually make your point instead of making mine for me???
My argument on here has been about
unnecessary regulation (not deregulation) of the Internet to force ISPs to behave the way the FCC wants them to rather than what makes the most business sense. If you want a Net Neutral government non-profit service, go ahead! I'd LOVE more alternatives, especially with health care. But no, you want my internet service to be slower (even if I'm willing to pay more to get faster service) so your non-real time services are faster. You say that's not what it's about but it's the NET EFFECT of forcing the ISPs to run everything equal, even if it means real time services cannot function!
Why do you think Netflix would be willing to pay an ISP to get its services priority? Do you honestly think they WANT to spend more money? No, it's because if their customers cannot get HD or 4K services, their business is going to suffer and eventually fail. You don't buy something you can't get due to the ISP having limited total bandwidth and they allow non-real time services (like torrent downloads) as much bandwidth as a real-time service. But then if you use more bandwidth, maybe you should pay for more bandwidth. This is how mobile operates and it's BECAUSE of limited bandwidth! Your Net Neutrality says they can't throttle all those people trying to watch movies on their iphones in favor or something actually important like maybe a PHONE CALL? So I'm supposed to get a lower level voice quality phone call so you can watch Happy Days on your way to work? THAT is the down side of Net Neutrality. It does NOT take into consideration WHAT THE CONTENT IS an whether it's IMPORTANT or not. If bandwidth were unlimited, it would not matter, but it's NOT unlimited and it DOES matter. Important phone calls should not suffer so someone can watch Barney on their school bus.
Cable broadband has NEVER used phone lines and thus the reason it was classified as unregulated information, not a common carrier. As I posted before and you ignored like everything else I posted, other than some origination rights, the FCC does NOT control cable content. It's NOT regulated (or at least it wasn't in the past; it might be
now if that reclassification holds). They can show porn all day long on cable if they want. If CNN wanted to show porn after 11PM, they COULD (not so sure now). There was no regulation to stop them. It's been a privately owned and privately broadcasted cable channel that you cannot get from a TV without buying it. It's not like the public airwaves that are received from any modern set. Similarly, no one gets the Internet without a provider and it is the provider that decides whether you can surf porn or not (i.e. a school would probably block it).
Cable has not been regulated for content because it's not the public airwaves and does not fall under the Communication Act of 1934 which ONLY includes telephone (cable did not exist and has never "replaced" the public broadcasting airwaves or telephone systems). The only regulations you see are for providers choice to not carry and for safety warning systems for emergencies (that have nothing to do with content).
If you reclassify the Internet as a "common carrier", you open the door for the POSSIBILITY of the US government to regulate it any way they want. And THAT is what you don't seem to comprehend. You
want Net Neutrality, but you what you get is regulation that may or may not give you what you want over the long haul. Governments change. People running the FCC change. Just because they did not infringe on private phone calls does not mean they won't infringe on what web sites you can access.
I can easily see where they might now decide to block any and all foreign links that might be somehow connected to terrorist networks. It's for your own good. The problem is they may not be connected and who decides that anyway? We don't like the green party so we'll label them terrorists. We keep people without trial in Guantanamo prison. We just labeled them terrorists without proof, without trial and there they are. This is the same government you trust to not label YOU a terrorist and hold you without a trial? I've listed tons of reasons to not trust this government. it's corrupt and full of greedy evil people. And you want them to now regulate the most important information source of the 21st Century.
Yeah, that's "crazy". It's "conspiracy" theories. It's a FACT our government is corrupt and does "crazy" things all the time. I've listed the proof. I don't trust them. You shouldn't either. People like Ted Cruz? CRAZY. Can you imagine him as President?
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.
You saying I'm wrong doesn't change a thing. I've PROVEN you wrong over and over and all you do is post nonsense and then say I'm wrong. I learned long ago that people like you aren't discussing something. You are "debating" and that means you never admit your points are invalid even when you know they are. You are out to win. I don't give a crap. My point is that regulation of the Internet WITHOUT SPECIFIC BOUNDS is BAD. They want to ONLY achieve this or that. Fine. Make a law that does that. Don't put some appointed crony in charge my freedom of speech!
If Comcast can't keep up their network to be able to handle more data that is their problem.
So Comcast is supposed to just dish out as much money as it takes to ensure near unlimited bandwidth?
You know it's a business, right? You realize they can't just run up debt like the Federal Government has been doing? And that debt is part of the problem. We constantly "charge" things in this country that we can't pay for. The government does it constantly and it's putting our country in more danger as time goes by. If your or I did that we get bad credit and eventually go bankrupt. And even bankruptcy itself allows for forgiving debt that everyone else ends up paying for that person's utter irresponsibility. And that includes thousands of startup businesses every year that fail due to incompetence of the owners. They want to get rich and take out a loan; fail and you and I pay higher fees to pay for it (banks pay for nothing and if/when they do fail, we bail them out!)
This won't be a problem because...
...get this...
THAT'S NOT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY DOES!
So now shouting in large letters makes your point? Part of the problem is you keep talking like they just passed a Net Neutrality law. They did not. The FCC voted by itself to reclassify all broadband as Title2 "common carriers" (traditionally this meant "telephones"). The problem is that all broadband is NOT a common carrier. Cable lines are PRIVATE NETWORKS that SELL ACCESS. Cable has NEVER been regulated and it should not be regulated. The "INTERNET" itself should not be regulated. It is a form of communication and free speech should not abridged.
The "problems" your side claims are present that need "Net Neutrality" to fix could easily be addressed with non-profit government service similar to our public airwaves. In other words, let the government offer nation-wide WiFi over the public airwaves and THAT could and SHOULD be Net Neutral since everyone would have the same access and access speeds. It would be a public SERVICE. If it's not fast enough, let taxes pay for upgrades. If people need private faster access, they should be able to get it from private companies as we already do.
It's not hard to see why broadband providers wouldn't like that idea. It would mean fewer potential customers for faster broadband. It would quite possibly make mobile phones less relevant since WiFi would be everywhere (at where there are towns, cities and people), but it could be made to work as wide as any cell network. Go ahead. Pass it. I'd love WiFi available everywhere and a small tax to make it happen nation wide would be good investment in infrastructure like the high-speed rail, etc. that we never seem to get while the rest of the civilized moves ahead. But FORCING businesses into regulation that have never been regulated (like cable and cable broadband) can only lead to new problems in the end. You don't see it. Fine. I do. You telling me I'm "wrong" is silly because you don't know the future and it not admitted it could go wrong is just lying to yourself because it's an undeniable fact.
I see your have your fans that agree with you, but that doesn't make it true. It just means there's other people out there that think the government can solve all their problems. I know I'm sounding like a Republican now and it bugs me since I've usually gone for Democrats or Independents in my voting career, but that's because the Republicans went so far to the right it's ridiculous lately. But the idea of spending within your means and not letting the government control more than it has to in order to keep the criminals under control and the businesses from just GOUGING us to death is a deterrent to "freedom" in general and I don't like it.
Some regulation is necessary to prevent greed from going awry (i.e. Pure Capitalsm doesn't work since most of the money ends up in the hands of the few). It's sad it's like that, but it's because of self-interest and greed.
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. How do some of you people even manage to dress yourselves in the morning?
Calling me a liar and proving are two different things. All I see from you is a flame. Come back when you're willing to prove your claims rather than just throw insults around.
