06-04-2014 10:45 AM
38 12
tools
  1. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Go back to what I said in the post you quoted. The ruling plays a big role in it. Since I seem to need to simplify it...

    This ruling allows companies to throttle and block parts of the net.

    If isp's start doing that in large scale or they charge a lot extra for special access, then a large demand could develop for unrestricted internet.

    If that large demand happens, business and investors will take notice and seek to fill that demand with new services in some way, shape, or, form.

    Had this ruling not happened, the potential for that demand would never be realized because all the companies are already filling it.
    If you think that will happen you need to look at it again.
    The cost of entry aka lay down new lines is sky high. The first set of lines currently being used were laid down with government money.

    Out side of that issue you have the massive issue of perments to lay down.

    As for a counter to your argument I will point to cable TV. That was deregulated years ago guess what still one choice for most people. Same as with isp's you are lucky if get more than one choice.
    So no I read it. Just history says otherwise.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-20-2014 07:34 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    This video might not be safe for work (language), but does offer up a comedic perspective of what's going to happen. Enjoy the internet as it is now, because I see change a coming....

    Most likely NSW (I mean it's HBO for cryin out loud)
    06-03-2014 02:45 AM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I am going to say something that may shock some people:

    What we need to fix the the net neutrality issue is a publicly funded, owned, and maintained fiber optic infrastructure that is open for private companies to provide service to customers.

    The reason the free market has failed in this case is because there cannot be competition because it is extremely expensive for each company to run their own infrastructure. The answer is to take the infrastructure out of the equation. We cannot begin to reach the limits of fiber optic technology currently, so competing companies can provided better/faster/cheaper service by simply upgrading the technology on each end of the wire. Multiple companies can compete in an area by having a public, mutually exclusive infrastructure that the isp's tie into. Then the free market can work as intended and much of the net neutrality issues can work themselves out with huge amounts of government oversight.
    06-03-2014 08:50 AM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    I am going to say something that may shock some people:

    What we need to fix the the net neutrality issue is a publicly funded, owned, and maintained fiber optic infrastructure that is open for private companies to provide service to customers.

    The reason the free market has failed in this case is because there cannot be competition because it is extremely expensive for each company to run their own infrastructure. The answer is to take the infrastructure out of the equation. We cannot begin to reach the limits of fiber optic technology currently, so competing companies can provided better/faster/cheaper service by simply upgrading the technology on each end of the wire. Multiple companies can compete in an area by having a public, mutually exclusive infrastructure that the isp's tie into. Then the free market can work as intended and much of the net neutrality issues can work themselves out with huge amounts of government oversight.
    So you want to go all "Hugo Chavez" on the internet? You're right, I am surprised that you'd want a "socialistic" approach. Not that I completely disagree with it. If you watched that video above, the cable companies spend the 2nd highest amounts on lobbyists. Anything that takes away some of their power would be fine by me. Although, I'm already seeing people whine that it's "gubment run internet". I'm guessing we'll hear something like Obamaweb or something of the sorts.
    06-03-2014 09:29 AM
  5. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So you want to go all "Hugo Chavez" on the internet? You're right, I am surprised that you'd want a "socialistic" approach. Not that I completely disagree with it. If you watched that video above, the cable companies spend the 2nd highest amounts on lobbyists. Anything that takes away some of their power would be fine by me. Although, I'm already seeing people whine that it's "gubment run internet". I'm guessing we'll hear something like Obamaweb or something of the sorts.
    I guarantee that I know as much or more about the chain of events that lead us to the the net neutrality standoff than anyone that will ever care to post in this thread. It is not an issue i am a stranger to.

    To imply that giving the government more control over the internet is not dangerous would probably be the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet. The government(that has never smidgen of corruption in its history /sarcasm) controlling the internet would be the same or worse than the government directly controlling all the news organizations in the country The internet is at it's most basic principal the free flow of information. Giving the government any real control over the freedom to communicate openly with people all around the world in real time is incredibly dangerous.

    This whole situation is a balancing act between letting the fox and the corrupt farmer that wants to control who gets the eggs out of the house guard the hen house. The FCC needs as short a leash as possible and the companies need to recognize that a closed internet is a dead internet.
    06-03-2014 09:57 AM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    I guarantee that I know as much or more about the chain of events that lead us to the the net neutrality standoff than anyone that will ever care to post in this thread. It is not an issue i am a stranger to.

    To imply that giving the government more control over the internet is not dangerous would probably be the stupidest thing ever posted on the internet. The government(that has never smidgen of corruption in its history /sarcasm) controlling the internet would be the same or worse than the government directly controlling all the news organizations in the country The internet is at it's most basic principal the free flow of information. Giving the government any real control over the freedom to communicate openly with people all around the world in real time is incredibly dangerous.

    This whole situation is a balancing act between letting the fox and the corrupt farmer that wants to control who gets the eggs out of the house guard the hen house. The FCC needs as short a leash as possible and the companies need to recognize that a closed internet is a dead internet.

    So by "Publicly funded", you're looking at more of like a "PBS" scenario? When you mentioned "Publicly funded" a government backed (sort of like public utilities) is what I thought you were referring to, not so much a federally controlled (although maybe federally funded) system. As much infrastructure and expense as it would take to fund, I hate to say it but a government backed system might be the only way to go.

    My biggest complaint about what Verizon/Comcast et. al. want to do is they want to be gate keepers of content. That type of control should not be an option. The biggest problem I can see is pulling the infrastructure out of their hands, and giving it to another entity. My guess is the other entity would probably try to find a way to profit from the control of power. It's generally what tends to happen in these situations.
    06-03-2014 10:24 AM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So by "Publicly funded", you're looking at more of like a "PBS" scenario? When you mentioned "Publicly funded" a government backed (sort of like public utilities) is what I thought you were referring to, not so much a federally controlled (although maybe federally funded) system. As much infrastructure and expense as it would take to fund, I hate to say it but a government backed system might be the only way to go.

    My biggest complaint about what Verizon/Comcast et. al. want to do is they want to be gate keepers of content. That type of control should not be an option. The biggest problem I can see is pulling the infrastructure out of their hands, and giving it to another entity. My guess is the other entity would probably try to find a way to profit from the control of power. It's generally what tends to happen in these situations.
    I want to make the "last mile" infrastructure publicly owned and maintained but the service delivered by private ISP's. The largest reason competition is not happening is because it is not financially feasible to run multiple infrastructures to every house in America. Instead, you have the last mile owned by the citizens and the the ISP's only control the technology on either end. You could then feasibly have multiple competitive ISP's in the same areas that can much more cheaply and effectively upgrade their own assets to provide better service. They could tie into a universal network of fiber and users could easily switch between ISP's.

    Under the current system, we have a monopoly that has been created by legitimate limitations, stupid policies enacted by a government that does not understand what it is legislating or have the consistency to follow up on requirements and promises, and (of course) corporate greed. You take away the legitimate issues and enact better polities and the corporate greed will then be fixed by the free market.
    06-03-2014 10:42 AM
  8. anon8126715's Avatar
    I want to make the "last mile" infrastructure publicly owned and maintained but the service delivered by private ISP's. The largest reason competition is not happening is because it is not financially feasible to run multiple infrastructures to every house in America. Instead, you have the last mile owned by the citizens and the the ISP's only control the technology on either end. You could then feasibly have multiple competitive ISP's in the same areas that can much more cheaply and effectively upgrade their own assets to provide better service. They could tie into a universal network of fiber and users could easily switch between ISP's.

    Under the current system, we have a monopoly that has been created by legitimate limitations, stupid policies enacted by a government that does not understand what it is legislating or have the consistency to follow up on requirements and promises, and (of course) corporate greed. You take away the legitimate issues and enact better polities and the corporate greed will then be fixed by the free market.
    I have to admit that I'm skeptical. We had deregulation of the energy market several years ago in Texas and were promised lower rates. There was an initial small drop in prices shortly after deregulation, but then you had all these electric companies die off as fast as they sprouted up. Eventually prices shot back up, and now we mostly have 2 big companies handling our electric needs. From what I recall, the energy company Enron also had its finger on the rolling black-outs in California trying to manipulate prices there.
    06-03-2014 11:38 AM
  9. oz123's Avatar

    Under the current system, we have a monopoly that has been created by legitimate limitations, stupid policies enacted by a government that does not understand what it is legislating or have the consistency to follow up on requirements and promises, and (of course) corporate greed. You take away the legitimate issues and enact better polities and the corporate greed will then be fixed by the free market.
    The government knows exactly what it is doing, this is what they want.

    Is America becoming a Russian-style oligarchy? | TheHill
    06-03-2014 11:56 AM
  10. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    We also have Verizon (and I'm sure others) playing both sides of Title II to their benefit. They get fiber subsidized (in the case of Verizon) because it's a "public service" (basic telephone service, as a common carrier) but them scream that they are "information providers" when it comes time to be regulated (not a common carrier). I can't remember where I read it or saw the story, but the documents supporting this were found and in that article.

    Seems pretty blatant to me and should be easy to "fix". Of course, the people that matter won't see it or care enough to do anything about it.
    Aquila likes this.
    06-03-2014 06:58 PM
  11. NoYankees44's Avatar
    We also have Verizon (and I'm sure others) playing both sides of Title II to their benefit. They get fiber subsidized (in the case of Verizon) because it's a "public service" (basic telephone service, as a common carrier) but them scream that they are "information providers" when it comes time to be regulated (not a common carrier). I can't remember where I read it or saw the story, but the documents supporting this were found and in that article.

    Seems pretty blatant to me and should be easy to "fix". Of course, the people that matter won't see it or care enough to do anything about it.
    All the way back to the Telecommunications Act, the government has been providing subsidies and encentives for isp's to upgrade networks, but never actually held the companies to the upgrades. So minimal upgrades happened. It was a quite frankly stupid plan to start with.

    Yes it is an easy fix, but the fcc has to have the balls and intelligence to do it. 2 things I don't think they have.
    06-03-2014 07:22 PM
  12. anon8126715's Avatar
    Yes it is an easy fix, but the fcc has to have the balls and intelligence to do it. 2 things I don't think they have.
    Based on that video above, it claims that the Obama administration put a former CEO of Comcast, I believe, in charge of the FCC. I'm not sure if that's because he would know the culture of the telecom industry and could have greater access, or if it's just cronyism run wild. Either way, I think there's a conflict of interest there.
    06-03-2014 10:03 PM
  13. SteveISU's Avatar
    Not the CEO, a former lobbyist of the 2nd biggest lobbying industry as detailed in Olivers video. What happen to Obama saying lobbyists weren't welcome in his administration?
    Kevin OQuinn and Aquila like this.
    06-04-2014 10:45 AM
38 12

Similar Threads

  1. YouTube audio/video out of sync and there's no full screen for videos?
    By Kevin Tao in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-14-2017, 04:27 PM
  2. A question on Note 10.1 2014, and GPS
    By den1959 in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-26-2014, 12:17 PM
  3. Looking at data usage and gave a?
    By cmcfarland in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 11:52 AM
  4. Note 2 not showing up on My Computer and Note 3 not recognized by kies or PC
    By Ahmed Hesham in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 03:38 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 09:16 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD