End of Net Neutrality

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

As for the roads, we can agree to disagree, and that's fine, but you haven't really made the point that private roads are better

 

I actually never said they were.

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And private industry has no profit motive to keep improving technology. If they've got a product/service/resource that's a monopoly, then they'd exploit that to maximize profits. And only spend money on improvements if they had to, which usually happens given sufficient competition, but I'm specifically talking about monopolies or near-monopolies where there's little to no competition.

IT doesn't have to be a monopoly  

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I actually never said they were.

Fair enough. I missed your point on the roads then.

 

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

IT doesn't have to be a monopoly  

I agree, it doesn't. And I'm in favor of figuring out how to make that true for ISPs, but right now broadband comes to most (all?) houses on a single cable without the home owner having a choice of who provided that cable, which makes ownership of that cable a monopoly.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Fair enough. I missed your point on the roads then.

 

I agree, it doesn't. And I'm in favor of figuring out how to make that true for ISPs, but right now broadband comes to most (all?) houses on a single cable without the home owner having a choice of who provided that cable, which makes ownership of that cable a monopoly.

And...I'd rather have that than government owned.  It's a situation that just needs to be regulated.

 

You disagree with that....and that's fine.

 

I very early on in this conversation said that Roads are a very low technology system...therefore, making a statement that they really don't fit within the discussion with high technology systems.

Edited January 29, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[BigRedBuster]

 

[RedDenver]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And...I'd rather have that than government owned.  It's a situation that just needs to be regulated.

 

You disagree with that....and that's fine.

 

I very early on in this conversation said that Roads are a very low technology system...therefore, making a statement that they really don't fit within the discussion with high technology systems.

If we could regulate them well, that's another option I'd be ok with, but like your criticism of the budget squabbles for roads, I think net neutrality regulations will be policy squabbles for years to come with the regulations getting watered down like what has happened with financial regulations since the Great Recession.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

If we could regulate them well, that's another option I'd be ok with, but like your criticism of the budget squabbles for roads, I think net neutrality regulations will be policy squabbles for years to come with the regulations getting watered down like what has happened with financial regulations since the Great Recession.

 

Let's not over state something.

 

Even with the deregulation of the financial markets since Trump took over, they are still an extremely heavily regulated system.

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Let's not over state something.

 

Even with the deregulation of the financial markets since Trump took over, they are still an extremely heavily regulated system.

Fair enough - I don't want to turn this into an argument of "how much" on my financial sector analogy. My point is that even if we put a well-regulated system into place now, it can be deregulated over time, which is a reason against private ownership of monopolies. How much of a reason is certainly debatable.

 

On a related topic, do those who are opposed to government ownership of broadband/ISP against just federal ownership or also municipal or perhaps neighborhood (community but non-government)? Or some combination of things with what caveats?

[Whistlebritches]

I'm 100% against federal and 100% for municipal with the caveat that we shouldn't need either. If there was actual real competition for home internet service I don't think municipal broadband would be very interesting.

 

5G speeds could open entirely new markets for the cellular companies. Those of us in the city could realistically have 6-10 options for home broadband.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, Whistlebritches said:

I'm 100% against federal and 100% for municipal with the caveat that we shouldn't need either. If there was actual real competition for home internet service I don't think municipal broadband would be very interesting.

 

5G speeds could open entirely new markets for the cellular companies. Those of us in the city could realistically have 6-10 options for home broadband.

I suspect that if 5G becomes a real alternative to wired broadband (the speeds are good but how many simultaneous links can each tower handle and at what bandwidth), then we'll see a consolidation of the carriers (mergers, acquisitions, etc.). Actual competition would be great, but I'm not optimistic.

 

Any reason for such a strong difference between federal and municipal?

Edited January 29, 2018 by RedDenver

[BigRedBuster]

So, is this what we get with the end of net neutrality?

 

 

[zoogs]

This is the action of a moralizing State asserting state control over information access. What does that have to do with net neutrality? 

[Moiraine]

If that's legal, what's to stop Oklahoma from passing a bill to block access to New York Times, CNN, and Democratic candidate websites?

One stupid thing about the article - they're saying the goal is to rid the internet of child porn.

If ISP's were able to do that they would have done it already. This won't block that at all. It'll block places with consenting adults that everyone knows about.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Moiraine

[BigRedBuster]

17 hours ago, zoogs said:

This is the action of a moralizing State asserting state control over information access. What does that have to do with net neutrality? 

 

So, the state knows it's legal now for ISPs to limit access to certain websites or charge more due to the end of net neutrality.  

 

Moraine's post above mine is a large part to my point.  If states are able to take this action, what is stopping states or the federal government or the President himself from limiting access to websites that don't paint them in positive light?  

 

Would this set precedent for Trump to limit access to CNN?

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Moiraine]

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

 

Quote

Advocates of keeping the 2015 open-internet rules have the backing of 50 U.S. senators, including Republican Susan Collins. And with the absence of Senator John McCain because of illness, they believe they will win on a 50-49 vote.

 

 

Why the f*** is this a partisan issue? Oh, right, Obama's name was on the protection against the newest iteration of attacks. I mean, it's not possible that Obama could ever have done a single thing right, right?

 

Quote

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, told reporters last week that consumers would not be harmed and he said it would simply return the internet to the pre-2015 oversight.

 

Again, they are flat out lying about this because they know how stupid enough of the general public is. The oversight was required due to a new loophole being found. The oversight kept things the way they are.