Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[Nihilianth]

(i) people still don't understand what NN is

Irony, oh, the irony!

It's like a Creationist saying "people still don;t understand what science is."

I am going to use one more analogy:

It's like if you were a carpenter, you would choose the correct tool for the correct job as a correct solution to a particular problem. You would use a nailgun to nail individual shingles to a roof in order to help protect the underlying structure from outside weather, for instance. You wouldn't use a jackhammer. (That wouldn't make any sense.) But you would use a jackhammer to breakup an old concrete floor that must go.

While jackhammers certainly have their place in the world of carpentry sometimes, Francesca is suggesting you use that jackhammer to build a roof.

The immediate problem we currently have before us, right now, (or did rather), was the potential for a decrease of competition in the business of online content provision. The problem that needed solving, was to PROTECT ONLINE CONTENT COMPETITION. We needed a nailgun for this job, in order to build a roof to protect the underlying structure from outside (*and illegal*) business practices! The jackhammer would be used in order to INCREASE INTERNET SERVICE COMPETITION by breaking up the ISP monopolies. We do not need that jackhammer in order to build this roof!

Considering the ISP monopolies have been around for the better part of a decade now, obviously there is no immediate concern to do anything RIGHT NOW.

And the real irony of it all, is that Francesca keeps crying about "MOAR COMPETITION!!!!" NN PROTECTS competition. But not in the business that SHE says it should! And the business she says it should, NN wouldn't be the correct tool for the job. You wouldn't use a nailgun on a concrete slab. You have a half-finished structure without a roof, with an eyesore of a concrete slab in the front yard. The roof is far more important to build at the moment, than tackling that concrete slab. You can't let a half-finished structure go unroofed for very long, afterall. Whereas, that concrete slab has already been there for a long time, and can be torn apart at our leisure. So forget about that concrete slab for the moment, and let's protect the more valuable structure.

------------------------------

*I say "illegal," because, again, extortion is illegal in virtually every single other business or industry in existence! Using false measures is also illegal! If you are selling a certain amount of a certain product, you must make sure your measurements are accurate according to the civilization you happen to reside in! If you say 100 MB/s, you better damned well ALWAYS provide 100 MB/s (technical issues notwithstanding, as always!) If you say you are selling a gallon of milk, you better damned well have a gallon of milk! If you say you have 15 cubits of wood, you better damned well have 15 cubits! (Yes, that is a nod to ancient civilizations! This is to illustrate the importance of weights and measures, as well as showing that extortion and false measures have been illegal for literally centuries upon centuries! And for virtually all businesses, and in virtually every single advanced civilization! Modern USA is no different, nor should it be!)*

 

[Tony Stark]

Well, they've done it. Let's see if Congress grows some balls and limits what the FCC can do to just net neutrality, which they swear, golly, really, trust us, that's all we're gonna take over.

As a principle, Congress should approve this to begin with -- regulatory bodies taking over a massive new area unanticipated by Congress should, at a minimum, have real, elected officials doing what we've charged them to do.

Well, let's see if it turns into water and electricity, with the company-customer dynamic abandoning direct concern for you, and shifting to sucking on congressional committees-as-customer.

Gosh, we can't afford the expansion, rate increase! Ohh that's too much, you whine. Rates set by government.

And we're off to the races dragging ass and whining to Congress.

Solve the problem by mandating net neutrality, and otherwise keeping their greedy little power-hungry fingers off the regulatory button.

Somehow I doubt they will.

Republicans can't do crap because Obama has the veto pen.

 

[Nihilianth]

Republicans can't do crap because Obama has the veto pen.

Yup, and in two years, the rate they are going, they will lose the White House yet again, as well as control of both houses of Congress. What would absolutely destroy the Republican Party, is if they foolishly attempt to undue "Obamacare." It has gotten quite popular among the masses now.

 

[G6000]

If the FCC's power grab to regulate the internet as a public utility is allowed to stand, you would have to be among the most retarded of the retards to believe the FCC will not ultimately start regulating prices. You would also have to be incredibly gullible to not see the final outcome of the internet-as-public-utility to be the same as it has been for every other designated public utility. That is to say, government-sanctioned monopolies. You will one day have only one choice of internet provider where you live after the government is allowed to take over the internet.

All the other crap about censorship and whatever other nonsense has found its way onto these 12-odd pages aside, these things you can absolutely depend upon. Price fixing and government-sanctioned monopolies.

"Net neutrality" is the Trojan Horse used as the vehicle for this invasion.

"I'm just going to put it in a little bit, baby."

 

[paulhutch]

The federal government does not set any public utility rates. The FCC does not set consumer rates for any thing at all. The federal government and FCC do not create monopolies in utilities, telecommunications, television, radio, or broadband.

G6000 needs to show some evidence that they do any of these things if he wants rational people to believe him.

For other readers, all the rate setting and monopoly creation that G6000 imagines comes from the US government actually is done by State/County/City/Town governments. In fact the federal government has broken up a very large monopoly originally created by State/County/City/Town governments, AT&T.

 

[Cleon]

If the FCC's power grab to regulate the internet as a public utility is allowed to stand, you would have to be among the most retarded of the retards to believe the FCC will not ultimately start regulating prices. You would also have to be incredibly gullible to not see the final outcome of the internet-as-public-utility to be the same as it has been for every other designated public utility. That is to say, government-sanctioned monopolies. You will one day have only one choice of internet provider where you live after the government is allowed to take over the internet.

All the other crap about censorship and whatever other nonsense has found its way onto these 12-odd pages aside, these things you can absolutely depend upon. Price fixing and government-sanctioned monopolies.

"Net neutrality" is the Trojan Horse used as the vehicle for this invasion.

[qimg]http://i57.tinypic.com/2w21015.jpg[/qimg]
"I'm just going to put it in a little bit, baby."

Damn! If we could harness the power of logical fallacies, that post would solve global warming all by itself.

 

[Babbylonian]

For other readers, all the rate setting and monopoly creation that G6000 imagines comes from the US government actually is done by State/County/City/Town governments. In fact the federal government has broken up a very large monopoly originally created by State/County/City/Town governments, AT&T.

And, in fact, a temporally adjacent FCC ruling invalidated state laws preventing municipalities from starting their own broadband Internet services. But, I'm sure that's bad for us too because local government is only good until it actually does something...

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm wondering how the FCC has regulated say cable TV in a negative manner.

 

[Ladewig]

I found someone who believes NN is a government plot to hide the Truth.

Either my computer has an issue... or, more likely, the power of leftist "net neutrality" is already in force to hinder or totally roadblock the dissemination of this [Obama-is-a-America-hating-Muslim] article. (I was unable to share it on either Facebook or on LinkedIn).​

 

[Nihilianth]

Damn! If we could harness the power of logical fallacies, that post would solve global warming all by itself.

Quote of the year! Gotta be!

Even if G6000 were right, you can take your pick:

A corporate monopoly where you, as a consumer, get absolutely no say whatsoever in what they do (unless you are a stockholder. In which case, the more stock you own, the more say you get.)

Or government running it as a monopoly, where at least you get a vote, and nobody's vote counts more than someone else's.

But that is IF G6000 were telling it like it is. But he's not. So.....

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why would price regulation be a bad thing? They're an infrastructure company with a government mandated guaranteed market. They shouldn't expect that to be a license to print money.

 

[G6000]

Damn! If we could harness the power of logical fallacies, that post would solve global warming all by itself.

Go ahead and point them out. Give it your best shot.

Name a public utility that is not a local monopoly. Gas, electricity, water. Go ahead.

Name a public utility of which the government does not regulate the price. Go ahead.

Knock yourself out, and then when you have failed, read the first sentence of that post again.

 

[G6000]

Why would price regulation be a bad thing?

You see, folks?

The government won't stop at "net neutrality", and people like this will be just fine with it. They are already so accustomed to government expansion of power, they are expecting the outcome I have outlined.

 

[G6000]

Quote of the year! Gotta be!

Even if G6000 were right, you can take your pick:

A corporate monopoly where you, as a consumer, get absolutely no say whatsoever in what they do (unless you are a stockholder. In which case, the more stock you own, the more say you get.)

Or government running it as a monopoly, where at least you get a vote, and nobody's vote counts more than someone else's.

But that is IF G6000 were telling it like it is. But he's not. So.....

You, too. Name a public utility that is not a local monopoly. Gas, electricity, water. Go ahead.

Name a public utility of which the government does not regulate the price. Go ahead.

Knock yourself out, and then when you have failed, read the first sentence of my post again.

 

[G6000]

I'm wondering how the FCC has regulated say cable TV in a negative manner.

First, cable TV is not designated as a public utility.

Nevertheless, the government does restrict cable tv providers to specific geographic areas.

 

[paulhutch]

I'm sure you'll ignore this once again but, for the others reading here goes.

You, too. Name a public utility that is not a local monopoly. Gas, electricity, water. Go ahead.

In Massachusetts electricity and water are not monopolies. If you count propane as natural gas then it also is not a monopoly.

Name a public utility of which the government does not regulate the price. Go ahead.

In Massachusetts all three are optionally available from public utilities (consumers choice) and gas, electricity and water do not have state regulated prices.

The electricity situation in Massachusetts has been covered in detail in previous posts so I won't repeat that information here.

The water situation I have not covered previously so here goes. In Massachusetts you generally have two main choices for water supply a government owned and operated public water supply or your own well. Some citizens, including myself do not have a choice of a public water supply and must have our own well.

 

[paulhutch]

First, cable TV is not designated as a public utility.

Nevertheless, the government does restrict cable tv providers to specific geographic areas.

Once again you are wrong, the federal government and all states I'm aware of place no geographical restrictions on where cable companies operate.

 

[paulhutch]

Why would price regulation be a bad thing? They're an infrastructure company with a government mandated guaranteed market. They shouldn't expect that to be a license to print money.

Assuming you are talking about cable and broadband providers.

First they are not guaranteed a market, nobody is required to buy their services. The local governments that regulate them do not guarantee any level of income to the companies. Some local contracts between local governments and the local provider do have clauses that allow the company to withdraw from the contract if they can't make a profit due to consumers not signing up but that is a far cry from a guaranteed market.

If you're talking about federal level price regulation then it would be a very bad thing. There are vast differences in operating costs depending on what part of the USA the company services. Mandating a uniform price would cause extreme variability in profitability depending on the local conditions.

 

[Nihilianth]

You, too. Name a public utility that is not a local monopoly. Gas, electricity, water. Go ahead.

Name a public utility of which the government does not regulate the price. Go ahead.

Knock yourself out, and then when you have failed, read the first sentence of my post again.

Dude! People have already called you out on this! I can easily name public utilities that are not monopolies. I live in Northeast PA, and I have a choice of either getting my electricity directly from PP&L, or I can get it from one of a number of other providers, such as AEP Energy, Ambit Energy, American Power and Gas of PA, Amerigreen Energy, Bargain Energy, Bounce Energy, Champion Energy Services, Clearview Electric, Community Energy, Con Edison SOlutions, Constellation Energy, Direct Energy, Discount Energy Group, Energy Co-op, Entrust Energy, Ethical Electric, Frontier Utilities....And that is only halfway down the list! And that is just for my small town of 35,000! There is a hell of a lot more competition among the UTILITY of electric power, than there is for grocery stores in my home town (5 grocery stores, vs. nearly 2 dozen electricity providers!)

Now, using the power of Google, look up the area code 17701, and tell me which choices I ALREADY have for cable internet! My internet choices are either:

1. Cable (Comcast. That's it!)
2. DSL (which can be spotty, but there are a number of providers. Just not very many of them.)
3. Satellite (Which is even more spotty yet, and even less providers than DSL.)

Now, I do not own a laptop, and my PC is a bit dated: I have a don't have a wireless card. So it's either DSL or Cable. I work as a freelance web designer as a side gig. So I need reliability. Cable is the only real choice. And when it comes to cable internet, there is ONLY Comcast.

Now, for the 50 millionth time, NN does not seek out to create competition among ISPs. What it does do, is PROTECT competition among Content Providers! And NN certainly doesn't CREATE ANY monopolies. The monopolies already exist!

You keep repeating: "What choices do you have for utilities" is a friggin strawman! Again, THE MONOPOLIES ALREADY EXIST WITHOUT NN! Plus, NN doesn't have anything to do with creating or maintaining any sort of competition among ISPs! Again, it PROTECT competition among CONTENT PROVIDERS!

You want to use a jackhammer to build a roof. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[quadraginta]

If the FCC's power grab to regulate the internet as a public utility is allowed to stand, you would have to be among the most retarded of the retards to believe the FCC will not ultimately start regulating prices. You would also have to be incredibly gullible to not see the final outcome of the internet-as-public-utility to be the same as it has been for every other designated public utility. That is to say, government-sanctioned monopolies.

<snip>

You mean like what happened with the phone companies?

Maybe not.