FTC has decided to abandon net neutrality

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Apparently, the Telecoms have finally provided enough grease to slime this through the Admin's "pay as you go" way of dealing with business interests... The admin's ratings are in the porcelain bowl, anyway, along with repubs in general, so this just means that they get more money... an advance on the Telecom revenue jump...

Bigbucks commercial sites will pop up like lightning, while your favorite webblog will be loading... loading... loading... until hell freezes over. Well, that's if it's still there...

Yeah, and the current Congress is even lower, the lowest ever. The lowest Turd in the bowl; yessiree, that's our current legislature, controlled by the Dems.

Makes perfect sense.

Dems don't have enough votes. Its pointless to have a slim majority when you need a 2/3 majority to do anything in congress. The democrats don't have the 2/3 majority. Nice try though.

Well the Republicans sure got a lot of crap done without a 2/3 majority. :frown:

( /taps sarcasm meter. Hmm, results indeterminate.)

You do recognize that the Republican Congress had a Republican President, right, and therefore didn't really need the votes to override a veto?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Dems don't have enough votes. Its pointless to have a slim majority when you need a 2/3 majority to do anything in congress. The democrats don't have the 2/3 majority. Nice try though.

That's the biggest bullshit excuse I've heard. They don't need a 2/3 majority. They can get bills passed with a simple majority and send them along to be vetoed and then place the blame on Bush. At least there'd be the appearance of trying. Democrats aren't trying because they don't care. They just want to maintain the status quo.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: techs
The FTC is allowing the FREE market to decide?
WTF? What FREE market? The phone company won't let another company wire up my neighborhood, nor the cable company because they have FRANCHISES.
So the f*ck with the FREE market. It doesn't EXIST.

UM, those franchises were established by some level of government, most frequently, at the city/community level. Sometimes at the state level. The Telcos and cable companies did not put a gun to the communitiy's head; they bid for it and won. They paid / are paying for it (and so are you), and agreed to operate within the limits and restrictions imposed when the contract was signed.

So, see ... even the "little fish" politicians are important; ask 'em they'll tell you the same thing.

Besides, the greenies are not going to permit every provider to string up their own media, it ain't gonna happen; it's not eco-friendly, and it's too expensive. It'd be like a roof of cable over the entire country.

There have been some state laws initiated, enacted in some cases, to make the cable tv companies have to follow the same rules as the phone companies, and to standardize, at least by state, the consumer access laws (entertainmennt and Internet). In Illinois, it's passed the legislature, but Blago cum Elvis-da-Gov hasn't signed it yet.

As it is now, in most places, each community sets its own rules, so any new provider wanting to bring in new service (and new competition) has to negotiate community-by-community (AT&T is going through this with U-Verse now) ... It takes more time, and costs more money to grease each local politician individually, than to just grease one set at the state level. So, support your state's local efforts to standardize the access laws; it should promote more competition and offer more alternatives so when one pisses you off, you can move to another (more than once).

FWIW

I believe you just made his point for him, that there isn't really a free market when it comes to Internet access, at least not for residential customers. There are endless regulatory and financial barriers to entry that discourage potential competitors from putting in their own "neutral" infrastructure. When backbone carriers are also in the business of providing content and premium services like VOIP or streaming video, it's a given that they will serve their own economic interests first regardless of what their effectively captive customers want.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it- an immediate attempt to blame the Dems, even though this is an executive branch decision.

Pop quiz, kiddies- Who is the Chief Executive at the moment?

Congress' low ratings? Immaterial, just more of the usual duhversion. Put this where it belongs, at the door to the Oval Office, and on the rightwing sycophants they're placed in every appointed board or position they possibly could...

Congress' low ratings are due in no small measure to the former majority's blocking tactics, particularly in the Senate. I suspect the electorate will express that displeasure again in 2008, leaving even fewer to stand in the way of progress...

The Rightie-tighties had their chance to deliver the smaller less intrusive govt they promised, and failed to deliver, choosing instead to engage in an orgy of greed, militarism and doublespeak. Having been found out, they now blame the other guy...

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: techs
The FTC is allowing the FREE market to decide?
WTF? What FREE market? The phone company won't let another company wire up my neighborhood, nor the cable company because they have FRANCHISES.
So the f*ck with the FREE market. It doesn't EXIST.

UM, those franchises were established by some level of government, most frequently, at the city/community level. Sometimes at the state level. The Telcos and cable companies did not put a gun to the communitiy's head; they bid for it and won. They paid / are paying for it (and so are you), and agreed to operate within the limits and restrictions imposed when the contract was signed.

So, see ... even the "little fish" politicians are important; ask 'em they'll tell you the same thing.

Besides, the greenies are not going to permit every provider to string up their own media, it ain't gonna happen; it's not eco-friendly, and it's too expensive. It'd be like a roof of cable over the entire country.

There have been some state laws initiated, enacted in some cases, to make the cable tv companies have to follow the same rules as the phone companies, and to standardize, at least by state, the consumer access laws (entertainmennt and Internet). In Illinois, it's passed the legislature, but Blago cum Elvis-da-Gov hasn't signed it yet.

As it is now, in most places, each community sets its own rules, so any new provider wanting to bring in new service (and new competition) has to negotiate community-by-community (AT&T is going through this with U-Verse now) ... It takes more time, and costs more money to grease each local politician individually, than to just grease one set at the state level. So, support your state's local efforts to standardize the access laws; it should promote more competition and offer more alternatives so when one pisses you off, you can move to another (more than once).

FWIW

I believe you just made his point for him, that there isn't really a free market when it comes to Internet access, at least not for residential customers. There are endless regulatory and financial barriers to entry that discourage potential competitors from putting in their own "neutral" infrastructure. When backbone carriers are also in the business of providing content and premium services like VOIP or streaming video, it's a given that they will serve their own economic interests first regardless of what their effectively captive customers want.

I don't think so. His post is pretty specific: "The phone company won't let another company wire up my neighborhood, nor the cable company ..."

He doesn't mention "those damn regulators {local politicians | civic leaders | county board embers ...}" He's putting it squarely in the lap of the providers, not the poeple that make the providers "do the dance" to permit them to bring up the services. The "endless regulatory and financial barriers" do not belong to the providers, they belong to communities and the politicians that created them.

Now, I'd certainly buy that the providers, once upon a time, fairly long ago, promoted the exculsionary regulations back in the day when it was to their advantage (i.e., cable only carried TV, Telco only carried phone voice) ... so now, perhaps it's ass-biteing time for them.

Jhhnn - wake up and chill. Bush and his administation is not the solitary root of all evil, and the poll ratings for Congress went under water (the rest of the way) after the Dems took charge. But that's not the topic in this thread (it was and will be the topic of a jillion other threads)

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. You brought up the issue of congressional approval in the context of this thread, ScottMac, an obvious attempt at diversion and obfuscation.

My point was, and remains, that the Bush Admin is past caring about what the public wants- they have little reason to deviate from their agenda on that account, given the hopeless nature of their situation. Money motives and wingnut ideology are all that remain.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Apparently, the Telecoms have finally provided enough grease to slime this through the Admin's "pay as you go" way of dealing with business interests... The admin's ratings are in the porcelain bowl, anyway, along with repubs in general, so this just means that they get more money... an advance on the Telecom revenue jump...

Bigbucks commercial sites will pop up like lightning, while your favorite webblog will be loading... loading... loading... until hell freezes over. Well, that's if it's still there...

Since you decided to whack "repubs in general" the door was open. For as hard as you poke at "repubs in general" but repeatedly fail to poke or point out the many failings of the Dems, it was more just a reminder that the knife cuts both ways.

I leave "diversion and obfuscation" tactics to those that need 'em.

I get the impression you need a little more work on your understanding of "grey areas" ... not everything is black & white. People can be conversational, attacks are not always necessary. it's OK to disagree.

So, save the fluff, try to talk like a normal person.

Thanks

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Hacp

Dems don't have enough votes. Its pointless to have a slim majority when you need a 2/3 majority to do anything in congress. The democrats don't have the 2/3 majority. Nice try though.

That's the biggest bullshit excuse I've heard. They don't need a 2/3 majority. They can get bills passed with a simple majority and send them along to be vetoed and then place the blame on Bush. At least there'd be the appearance of trying. Democrats aren't trying because they don't care. They just want to maintain the status quo.

Fillibuster. Guess how the Immigration Bill was defeated?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I agree. Which is the heart of the problem. *IF* the typical American *DID* spend more time thinking about the politcal issues, we wouldnt be in this mess. If people would realize how much unions and PACs influe3nce their own politicians, they would vote them out of office. We are simply getting what we allow.

I disagree with you, and not only on the absurd targetting of the relatively small impact of unions (ya, look how strong they're doing compared to the big corporations).

The 'typical American' wouldn't have much impact if they spent more time on politics - it's not as if every election has a 'good guy' and 'bad guy' running and he just needs to click right.

Our problem is far more fundamental, and ensures that the monied interests dominate the system. We need *systemic* reform, and perhaps most of all, to reduce the role of money.

As for the congress - it's a lot better having the majority and chairs in the hands of the dems. First, they prevent the congress enacting a lot of bad things, and the rest is gravy, such as the many investigations of the administration wrongdoings that can happen only because they have that majority. I'm disappointed in the low poll numbers, but it raises the question, who would the American people give high poll numbers to, if not the R's or D's? The L's, and G's, and others sure don't poll high as parties among the general public, either.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sweetpea70512

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
This sucks!

Also, please don't turn this into Republicans vs Democrats...

No it's worse.

It's The Rich Vs The Poor.

Only the rich will have access to Internet.

How long before the poor start a revolt on the rich?

Are you out of your friggin mind? Money has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the gevernment creeping further and further into our lives.

And we let them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sweetpea70512

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
This sucks!

Also, please don't turn this into Republicans vs Democrats...

No it's worse.

It's The Rich Vs The Poor.

Only the rich will have access to Internet.

How long before the poor start a revolt on the rich?

Are you out of your friggin mind? Money has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the gevernment creeping further and further into our lives.

And we let them.

No, he's in his mind - and he's right. "The government" is not some Bond villain who cackles as it invades Americans' freedoms - *that's* the 'out of your mind' view.

"The government" is simply a power which can serve good or evil, one group or another, who is responding to the influence of the corporate money behind this issue.

Its choice harms people, but that's not why it's doing it; it's doing it because the corporate money says to, for their benefit.

 

[ElFenix]

did anyone bother reading the report?

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sweetpea70512

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
This sucks!

Also, please don't turn this into Republicans vs Democrats...

No it's worse.

It's The Rich Vs The Poor.

Only the rich will have access to Internet.

How long before the poor start a revolt on the rich?

Are you out of your friggin mind? Money has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the gevernment creeping further and further into our lives.

And we let them.

No, he's in his mind - and he's right. "The government" is not some Bond villain who cackles as it invades Americans' freedoms - *that's* the 'out of your mind' view.

"The government" is simply a power which can serve good or evil, one group or another, who is responding to the influence of the corporate money behind this issue.

Its choice harms people, but that's not why it's doing it; it's doing it because the corporate money says to, for their benefit.

People tend to make the statement 'This is the best country in the world.' I don't think many take time to hink about this. In my opnion the U.S. system is the best in the world because it allows the people the most leverage in keeping the Government from poking its unwanted nose into our everyday lives. Their are a couple things I will usually back the government all the way on. National defense, Preservation of common resources, and protecting the people from big business.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
did anyone bother reading the report?

I'll quote for you, the important part:

"From any provider?s perspective, prioritization in delivery can be a means of making its offering better than those of its competitors ? faster, more reliable, and more effective. For example, a provider of a high-quality, expensive application may choose, if given the opportunity, to pay for a high level of certainty that all its packets will arrive quickly, while an application that has a slightly greater tolerance for delay or dropped packets may decline to pay for priority in an effort to keep costs down. From the ISPs? perspective, the value placed by content and applications providers on priority treatment may create opportunities to increase ISP revenues, through general fees, partnerships, or financial interests in affiliated providers"

AWESOME! Finally, I can pay to ensure my websites load quickly! Oh wait... I guess at least all these starving telcom conglomerates can increase their revenues. :roll:

 

[toolboxolio]

Republicans strike again and the dems don't have enough power to do sh!t.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sweetpea70512

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
This sucks!

Also, please don't turn this into Republicans vs Democrats...

No it's worse.

It's The Rich Vs The Poor.

Only the rich will have access to Internet.

How long before the poor start a revolt on the rich?

Are you out of your friggin mind? Money has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the gevernment creeping further and further into our lives.

And we let them.

No, he's in his mind - and he's right. "The government" is not some Bond villain who cackles as it invades Americans' freedoms - *that's* the 'out of your mind' view.

"The government" is simply a power which can serve good or evil, one group or another, who is responding to the influence of the corporate money behind this issue.

Its choice harms people, but that's not why it's doing it; it's doing it because the corporate money says to, for their benefit.

Good post Craig & debi. It was my wife that made that post.

People like angst will never admit to their Corporate buddies controlling the Government unfortunately because they are part of it.

Some people even admit they are shills now which at least gives the people that will eventually revolt a clear picture of the true villians.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Republicans strike again and the dems don't have enough power to do sh!t.

Come now people, they are the same thing. Repubs, Dems whats the difference except window dressing?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Republicans strike again and the dems don't have enough power to do sh!t.

Come now people, they are the same thing. Repubs, Dems whats the difference except window dressing?

Except one party is about being free and fair to everyone, while the other party is about being selfish and babying the rich.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

I'll quote for you, the important part:

"From any provider?s perspective, prioritization in delivery can be a means of making its offering better than those of its competitors ? faster, more reliable, and more effective. For example, a provider of a high-quality, expensive application may choose, if given the opportunity, to pay for a high level of certainty that all its packets will arrive quickly, while an application that has a slightly greater tolerance for delay or dropped packets may decline to pay for priority in an effort to keep costs down. From the ISPs? perspective, the value placed by content and applications providers on priority treatment may create opportunities to increase ISP revenues, through general fees, partnerships, or financial interests in affiliated providers"

AWESOME! Finally, I can pay to ensure my websites load quickly! Oh wait... I guess at least all these starving telcom conglomerates can increase their revenues. :roll:

that is obviously not the most important paragraph.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Republicans strike again and the dems don't have enough power to do sh!t.

Come now people, they are the same thing. Repubs, Dems whats the difference except window dressing?

Except one party is about being free and fair to everyone, while the other party is about being selfish and babying the rich.

:roll:

 

[jman19]

All this b!tching about Congress is absurd - Dem or Republican, there will always be turds floating in the bowl. When it gets bad enough, voters flush out the current ones, but the next group is usually always as bad.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sweetpea70512

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
This sucks!

Also, please don't turn this into Republicans vs Democrats...

No it's worse.

It's The Rich Vs The Poor.

Only the rich will have access to Internet.

How long before the poor start a revolt on the rich?

Are you out of your friggin mind? Money has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the gevernment creeping further and further into our lives.

And we let them.

No, he's in his mind - and he's right. "The government" is not some Bond villain who cackles as it invades Americans' freedoms - *that's* the 'out of your mind' view.

"The government" is simply a power which can serve good or evil, one group or another, who is responding to the influence of the corporate money behind this issue.

Its choice harms people, but that's not why it's doing it; it's doing it because the corporate money says to, for their benefit.

Good post Craig & debi. It was my wife that made that post.

People like angst will never admit to their Corporate buddies controlling the Government unfortunately because they are part of it.
Some people even admit they are shills now which at least gives the people that will eventually revolt a clear picture of the true villians.

Huh. Wierd. The most powerful "Corporate buddy" I know is my director here at work. Maybe you know of someone I know but dont know it?

You remind me of guys I saw in a documentary about American Supremists who live in camps in Montana. They spew the same anti-corporate/anti government rhetoric as you. Hell, you are probably in one of those groups now...I've lived in OK I know all about those out of touch red necks.

 

[Trevelyan]

Can someone who is calling out the Republicans show me exactly which Republican representatives you are referring too? Or which Democrat representatives are fighting for Net Neutrality?

 

[Genx87]

Oh johnnys CS server wont get the same priority as my blocks VOIP or IPTV for the same price?

Damn, I am crying now!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh johnnys CS server wont get the same priority as my blocks VOIP or IPTV for the same price?

Damn, I am crying now!

If you're paying the same price, it's pretty egotistical to assume that your packets are more important.

Not to mention, net neutrality has as much to do with charging more based on source and destination location as it does port and packet type.

In addition, the big communications companies have made their fortunes off of running their lines through everyone's property for free. If they're going to start charging everyone to nickel and dime everyone for their traffic, I'm going to start charging them rent for using my land. Screw easement agreements, if they don't have to play by the rules then neither do I.