Net Neutrality takes another hit - this time from the FCC

[tubemonkey]

Brilliant!

Warning - he uses a few "naughty" words

[dandelioncottage]

Did you notice that reference to flying monkeys? "Fly, my pretties, fly!"

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Brilliant!

Warning - he uses a few "naughty" words

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by dandelioncottage

Did you notice that reference to flying monkeys? "Fly, my pretties, fly!"

But of course

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I especially liked this quote (which applies to deregulation generally): "Capitalism does not work when monopolies block the way between producers and consumers. That's not rhetoric, it's math. Capitalism doesn't work when it's impossible for a new business to emerge in a market. Look how much trouble Google is having with Google Fiber, and they're Google."

That's an interesting alternate universe. In the universe I live in, Google Fiber has already rolled out in 3 cities and has plans to roll out in 9 more. I have access to two different wired broadband carriers and numerous other wireless and satellite carriers. I'm thinking that monopoly word doesn't mean what he thinks it does.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's an interesting alternate universe. In the universe I live in, Google Fiber has already rolled out in 3 cities and has plans to roll out in 9 more. I have access to two different wired broadband carriers and numerous other wireless and satellite carriers. I'm thinking that monopoly word doesn't mean what he thinks it does.

...and in the universe I live in, Cox cable is the only "alternative" If I moved to the next town over, I could have Comcast as my only "alternative". Can it really be called an "alternative" if you have no other choice? (I really really don't count satellite as a viable option for broadband)

Shari

[mrscoach]

In most of Texas (the many places I have lived, anyway) you have one cable company, one big phone company, MAYBE a small, local phone, and satellite. Oh, and cell phone, but not all companies have towers everywhere so coverage is spotty in parts of western Texas. That if the reality of competition here, it doesn't exist. They won't upgrade our innovate in our area unless forced.
We have Verizon landline coverage, but forget about them putting in FiOS. Not happening, and I live in a larger town.

[tubemonkey]

If campaign finance is a speech issue, then so is net neutrality. Funny how the right-wing doesn't see it that way.

[pwalker8]

Well, the US is a very large country. It's not always cost effective to run multiple high speed broadband to every residence in the US. My sister lives in a rural county were the only broadband option is satellite. She barely gets cell coverage. So, she uses satellite. That's her choice. I choose to live in an urban area where I get 100 Mbps broadband speeds and I have a wide selection of broadband providers. It's only a monopoly if you choose it to be. It would be nice if we didn't have to make trade offs in the real world, but we do.

Not to be political about it, but I will point out that objecting to the government regulating campaign financing and objecting to the government regulating the internet ( net neutrality is all about the government regulating the internet) seem to me to be fairly consistent stands.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not to be political about it, but I will point out that objecting to the government regulating campaign financing and objecting to the government regulating the internet ( net neutrality is all about the government regulating the internet) seem to me to be fairly consistent stands.

Who's objecting? The point isn't the regulation in and of itself. Unlimited campaign financing and net neutrality are both forms of speech and the feds are the only ones who can enforce it.

I don't care how much the cable industry opposes net neutrality. The internet is no longer an optional form of entertainment. It's an absolutely essential public service in today's society and if the feds have to force the industry to comply at the point of a gun, then so be it!

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't care how much the cable industry opposes net neutrality. The internet is no longer an optional form of entertainment. It's an absolutely essential public service in today's society and if the feds have to force the industry to comply at the point of a gun, then so be it!

Exactly. I sent a comment to the FCC and told them that letting the providers decide who got through fast would kill content creators because it would be legal extortion because the 'regular' speeds would never get any faster because the new income stream would be protected at all costs. I pointed out the push to get broadband and/or WIFI to all and that this would kill that idea because rates would rise to fund 'innovation', but that innovation would cost more so as to line the industry's pockets.

I encouraged them to make broadband internet a public utility so that it could be regulated and to not listen to the service providers' prediction of the danger to them since they couldn't even state what that danger would be, only that it would be terrible.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Who's objecting? The point isn't the regulation in and of itself. Unlimited campaign financing and net neutrality are both forms of speech and the feds are the only ones who can enforce it.

I don't care how much the cable industry opposes net neutrality. The internet is no longer an optional form of entertainment. It's an absolutely essential public service in today's society and if the feds have to force the industry to comply at the point of a gun, then so be it!

No, the Feds are the only ones who can throttle them. People have engaged in free speech with regards political campaigns since the beginning of the the US. It is only recently that the Federal government (both parties actually) has attempted to throttle free speech in the guise of regulating campaign financing. The internet has worked quite well and is still neutral with regard to content without Federal interference.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, the US is a very large country. It's not always cost effective to run multiple high speed broadband to every residence in the US. My sister lives in a rural county were the only broadband option is satellite. She barely gets cell coverage. So, she uses satellite. That's her choice. I choose to live in an urban area where I get 100 Mbps broadband speeds and I have a wide selection of broadband providers. It's only a monopoly if you choose it to be. It would be nice if we didn't have to make trade offs in the real world, but we do.

Not to be political about it, but I will point out that objecting to the government regulating campaign financing and objecting to the government regulating the internet ( net neutrality is all about the government regulating the internet) seem to me to be fairly consistent stands.

I had a feeling you were going to try to equate lack of choice to living in a "rural county". It would be one thing if that were actually the case...unfortunately, I live in Hartford County, CT...not exactly a "rural county" Saying that "it's only an option if you choose it to be" is saying that everyone in the country should live in a BIG city, and if they don't, then they deserve not to have basic services. Do you truly believe that?

Are you really, truly, that much of an elitist?

Shari

[pwalker8]

No, I believe that as a consumer, you choose what is important to you. You are just throwing out a straw man. For some people, lots of cheap land is important. That's what got my sister out to the sticks. She bought 80 acres for less than a normal sized house in many urban areas. The trade off is that since she is a low population density area, it simply isn't economical to run high speed cable to each and every house. Nor is it economical to have enough cell towers to give everyone a strong signal. Those are just the cold,hard, economic facts of life. Nothing elitist about it. I can assure you that the urban area that I live in would not be on anyone's list of elitist places. It simply has the population density to support lots of stuff.

She finds that satellite internet gets the job done for her. Not a perfect solution, but it's much faster than dial up and getting better all the time. I read last week that Google is looking at putting up a fleet of satellites to provide fast internet for rural areas.

If you want to have multiple fast internet providers in your home town, then do a little research. Find out why you don't have multiple fast internet providers. Is it because your local government granted a monopoly to one provider? Is it because there just isn't the population density to support multiple providers? Most places should have at least cable and DSL. Anyway you look at it, it isn't a federal issue (remember when don't make a federal case out of meant something?), it's a local issue, to be solved locally.

[Prestidigitweeze]

I'm not much of a trumpet player, but I can fudge my way through "Taps" if anyone needs to pay their respects to this thread.