Twitter Comes Out In Favor of FCC's Strict Net Neutrality Rules

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
In that case the pros/cons list for this proposed 'net neutrality' is tipping heavily towards the con side.

That's the fairy tale being manufactured by the big media/cable corporate efforts.

Can you explain why we need to micromanage the economy in order to preserve internet freedom? And how the federal government promises to mitigate all of the negative unforeseen consequences of doing so?

It's not micromanaging "the economy." It's placing the same neutrality requirements on digital data as have been in place for phone calls between different carriers.

Personally, I'd rather hear all of that before we let them redistribute the interwebs.

Nothing is being redistributed.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

"Take their money elsewhere..."

Where I live (and a lot of people are in this situation too) there is only one ISP for any kind of "broadband" internet. So, if I was upset with my ISP I would have to forego the internet all together. I seriously doubt a few lost customers would spur new fiber optic lines being dropped and roads being torn up to expand infrastructure.

So, wouldn't you like to have more options?

The reason you aren't getting them is that the local laws and regulations most likely prefer the local monopoly and discourage new investment in infrastructure.

a reply to: greencmp

No one is going to be dropping lines or expanding infrastructure anytime soon. Not as long as they can continue to milk what they have and make money off of it. Digging trenches, tearing up roads and wiring homes is ungodly expensive.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
You support the proposed Net Neutrality (attempt to pass it without revealing details), yet you opposed the Patriot Act (passed without revealing details).

The two are very different.

Net Neutrality is proposed FCC rules that effect digital communications. Such rules do not, nor every have, needed congressional approval.

The ACA is a boondoggle created with significant corporate input from the Pharmaceutical/Healthcare Industrial Complex.

ACA = corporate designed

Net Neutrality = corporations against


Trying to say the two are the same thing is the absolute peak madness of absurdity.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Which is why filling any gap in service will always be an opportunity for huge profits, and therefore why a free market will always ensure those service needs are met.

The only way an ISP could get away with truly inferior service is if the government removes opportunity for competition. Intentionally or unintentionally. By meddling. Perhaps nder the name 'Net Neutrality.'

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
Which is why filling any gap in service will always be an opportunity for huge profits, and therefore why a free market will always ensure those service needs are met.

I can't figure out how that statement applies here.

The only way an ISP could get away with truly inferior service is if the government removes opportunity for competition.

Clearly, you've not stayed up to date with the overwhelming complaints of inferior service from ComCast?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: greencmp

No one is going to be dropping lines or expanding infrastructure anytime soon. Not as long as they can continue to milk what they have and make money off of it. Digging trenches, tearing up roads and wiring homes is ungodly expensive.

Yes, that is my point. If you prevent people from investing in separate infrastructure, you cannot grow and you lock yourself in the room with elephant.

We have technology, it really isn't a big deal to dig trenches and lay cable. It is a big deal (and frankly a near impossibility) to get permission from the state regulatory agency to do so.

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, that is my point. If you prevent people from investing in separate infrastructure, you cannot grow and you lock yourself in the room with elephant.

What is preventing people from investing in infrastructure?

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

You really aren't aware that Comcast is the most hated company in America, are you? Two ISPs are America's most hated companies:

Surprise: TWC and Comcast are the two most hated companies in America

Ask a room full of 100 people if they like their ISP. I bet you might see 10 hands, possibly 11.

Free market doesn't always give the customer the best product due to competition. Sometimes, "good enough" is all that is needed to continue to rake in massive profit, especially when all the big ISP's are on the same playing field. Profit is the motivator, not the demands of the people themselves.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

First part was a response to your point that the internet had become an integral part of our economy. Because of that, meeting internet service needs is a profitable enterprise and competition will be plentiful if the governemnt gets out of the way.

Complaints against ISPs will only make them consider improving service. It will take dropped subscriptions for them to feel any real pressure. Sadly, today's consumer base seems to have no patience and would rather let the federal government take control and solve their problems, without a second thought to abuse of power or simple bureaucratic inefficiency.

originally posted by: ketsuko
If it's their product or service, ummm, it's theirs.

Once you've purchased it, it's yours. You bought the electricity, you can say how it's used. You bought the PS3, you can modify it in any way you wish. You bought a window, you can install it in your home or smash it with a rock. The manufacturer doesn't have the right to tell you no.

Can you plug in an electric device bought in England without special adaptors?

That has to do with building codes, not the manufacturer. AEP (my electric provider) doesn't have a rule stating I cannot use an electric device purchased in England. The fact that adapters are even made is proof that there is no issue with me doing so.

May I introduce you to the concept of the VHS v. Betamax war? How about the BluRay v. HD-DVD? Or need I remind you of the Zune v. iPod and similar media players? Companies do it all the time with exclusivity.

But Apple wasn't allowed to say if you purchased a song for your iPod you weren't also allowed to purchase it for your Zune. As a condition of your purchases of a BluRay the company wasn't allowed to stipulate that you weren't allowed to buy an HD-DVD player.

Ummm need I revisit the above? X-Bone and PS4 are all about fighting over market share right now. Each has its own stable of exclusive titles on top of titles that cross platform. They do the exclusivity to lure in customers. Surely you are aware of this.

You missed my point here. Maybe I picked a bad example. Your purchase of a PS4 doesn't require you to enter into an agreement that you can't purchase an XBone. If you want to play Uncharted you are allowed to still buy the hardware and software to play Halo. Going further with the game consoles lets look at what Sony did with the PS3 that triggered all of their hacking problems. They sold the PS3 and specifically marketed the fact that it could run Linux out of the box with no modifications and then later updated their terms of use agreement to retroactively remove that capability from every PS3 they had already sold even though they had no legal title to those already sold devices. Was that right? Note that they did this at the request of the US Government as a result of the most powerful supercomputers in the world being nothing but a bunch of PS3's chained together.

You pay for your agreement with your ISP. If they tried it, they would have to fight with other ISPs who may or may not follow suit, and it depends widely on whether or not consumers would stand for it and pay for it. You also have to account for the deals ISPs have with website owners. What you have access to isn't solely based on what you pay for but it's also dependent on what the site owners cough up too.

What if you're paying for Y speed and the website you're contacting is also paying for an appropriate speed but the ISP steps in and says you get 1/3 of Y because the content provider isn't paying for a term in addition to their already signed hosting agreement?

As for if customers would pay for it, the ISP's operate on monopoly status and the internet is completely essential to the economy. There is no if here, you MUST pay for it unless you say it's legally not allowed.

Lets try another one. If you buy an action figure from a toy store does that manufacturer get to dictate who in your family plays with that toy? Can they dictate you can't melt it down into plastic? Can they dictate that you can only play with it between the hours of 6 and 7 pm? Once you purchase something it's yours. The company provides the product or service, they don't dictate the terms of use.

In the case of Netflix/Comcast, Netflix is just like you and doesn't want to pay more to Comcast. They think they should get special deals because they bring in a lot of customers to Comcast. Other ISPs have cut Netflix deals already. Comcast won't. The marketing divisions have convinced you that this is all about a fight over bandwidth when it's really a business battle between two of the big boys, and they're getting you to buy into Net Stupidity as a side product because, like you, they think it will make them have to pay less.

No, I think Verizon and Comcast actually have a point about Netflix. Saying that ISP's get to prejudice against specific data that goes over their network though is like letting the electric company dictate that it costs $1 to run my blender but 10 cents to run my coffee maker even though they both use the same amount of electricity. Are the individual drops of water that go on your lawn more costly than the drops of water that come out of your shower head?

The truth is that we will be slowed down to European bandwidth speeds across the board in all likelihood and the government will have access to all kinds of tax measures and licensure. They'll win because they need money ... and power. The rest of us will lose.

Considering Europe has faster and cheaper internet access than the US you're not making much of a point here.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, that is my point. If you prevent people from investing in separate infrastructure, you cannot grow and you lock yourself in the room with elephant.

What is preventing people from investing in infrastructure?

Well, there's the ISP's who have gone to court (and won) to stop Google from expanding Google Fiber.

So I guess it's the ISP's that are preventing people from investing in infrastructure.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
Complaints against ISPs will only make them consider improving service. It will take dropped subscriptions for them to feel any real pressure. Sadly, today's consumer base seems to have no patience and would rather let the federal government take control and solve their problems, without a second thought to abuse of power or simple bureaucratic inefficiency.

Is your business going to give up email, google docs, online payments, and a website in order to demand better service? What is your competitor going to do? Are they going to join you, or are they going to take advantage of you becoming less competitive in order to make a statement?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, that is my point. If you prevent people from investing in separate infrastructure, you cannot grow and you lock yourself in the room with elephant.

What is preventing people from investing in infrastructure?

Regulations.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, that is my point. If you prevent people from investing in separate infrastructure, you cannot grow and you lock yourself in the room with elephant.

What is preventing people from investing in infrastructure?

Well, there's the ISP's who have gone to court (and won) to stop Google from expanding Google Fiber.

So I guess it's the ISP's that are preventing people from investing in infrastructure.

Yes, those are the regulations I am talking about.

If Google can't break into a market to provide competing services, the regulatory construct is already preventing all investment in infrastructure.

Those are the laws that we should be revoking, not making new ones.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SubTruth

We are so far gone we do not even understand what real freedom is anymore.

Sure we do, last time I checked we still pretty free in this nation.


I kinda see this as a first amendment issue, the internet is a great and fantastic place for people to freely assemble and express them self's.

Do we need corporations dictating who has the ability to do so more efficiently?

How would the founding fathers feel about that.

We currently do not live in a free country. You might still have illusions but many others like myself see the cold hard truth before us. Patriot act is a prime example of the undermining of liberty.



If we actually followed the constitution agencies like the federal reserve could not and would not exist. Think I am overstating things take a look back and see what the founding fathers warned about so many years ago. Jefferson understood what would happen and he was right. When banks invade your government you are no longer free.

originally posted by: greencmp
Regulations.

Clarify. There's nothing in Net Neutrality to prevent expansion.

Google Says Net Neutrality Won’t Curb Expansion Of Google Fiber

a reply to: mOjOm

I do agree about having some regulation to keep things in check. Problem is the people doing the regulating are paid off and 100% corrupt in most cases. Look at the FDA....EPA.....DHS.....IRS....and tell me they are not corrupt on some level.



Why are things so bad/corrupt........We do not follow the constitution anymore. We put the rights of the masses over the rights of the individual.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: greencmp
Regulations.

Clarify. There's nothing in Net Neutrality to prevent expansion.

Google Says Net Neutrality Won’t Curb Expansion Of Google Fiber

Even your fellows at ATS recognize that there hasn't been necessary expansion of infrastructure. This is due to excessive regulations which prevent investment by local monopolies in league with local government.

"Net Neutrality" doesn't exist yet and neither if us has read it. If you believe that it will encourage new infrastructure investment, I would be interested to hear how.

Innovation is a threat to bureaucracy so, it does what it can to discourage it. This is just a universal principal that cannot be ignored.

Well now there's a new catch.....

Twitter needs to respond again?

Democratic FCC commissioner balks at net neutrality rules

Wheww !!!