RIP Net Neutrality

[begreen]

FCC hearing is on. Wireless spectrum auction report is the topic right now.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?319385-1/fcc-meeting-net-neutrality-wireless-spectrum

 

[begreen]

Looks like the FCC waffled, but "could change it's mind".

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/

 

[Jags]

Idiots.

 

[begreen]

They have huge pressures on both sides of the issue and are trying to seek a middle ground. They end up pleasing no one, but Comcast, et al clearly got the nod here. But what would one expect with a cable company lobbyist running the show? Anyhow it's a preliminary proposal. Expect plenty of sparks during the commentary period.

 

[Jags]

Oh - this is far from over.

 

[Bobbin]

The FCC scares the hell out of me. All you have to do is watch network news to realize how far they've strayed from the original mandate and what they now provide as comprehensive news coverage. Uncle Walt. would roll over in his grave at what has been foisted upon an unwary populace. JMO.

 

[BrotherBart]

With a wireless and cable lobbyist chairing the FCC what does ya s'pect?

 

[Grisu]

The problem is you are claiming what we have now is capitalism and it's not, it's a bastardized version of it called Crony Capitalism or mercantilism.

Again you seem to have bought into the idea that just because there is a democratic process that it has good outcomes. History shows us this is far from the truth.

Strawman. I never claimed democracy was perfect. However, I do not complain about businesses running the government (your "crony capitalism") and then offer as solution to get rid off a democratically elected government and let the country being run by corporations. How that is supposed to make the general population better off eludes me.

Actually quite a few have clauses in them that prevent competition by other firms.

Since you are so high on "facts", cite some of those bills.

 

[Grisu]

It's possible to make distinctions among those who do have the capital as to their individual levels of moral depravity. I have a considerable amount of loathing for both big business and big government yet logic dictates that I cannot rightfully despise every last individual with a dollar more in their pocket than I have in mine.

Quite right. If someone is wealthy due to producing and selling a good or service that many people liked and bought, I have no problems with that. I have problems with someone whose wealth is mostly coming from capital gains as they did not really produce anything to improve our livelihood. (E. g. For stock market gains, they transferred other people savings to themselves.)

You kind of beat around the bush but give me the impression that you're an ardent advocate for collectivism in most if not all of its forms. In a truly civilized and compassionate society we must have social obligations but unchecked, mindless collectivism is the perfect antithesis of man's innate individuality.

Interesting point. Is unchecked, mindless individualism any better? How about controlled, mindful collectivism?

 

[TMonter]

Strawman. I never claimed democracy was perfect. However, I do not complain about businesses running the government (your "crony capitalism") and then offer as solution to get rid off a democratically elected government and let the country being run by corporations. How that is supposed to make the general population better off eludes me.

Because a corporation's power under a capitalist system is directly linked linked to how well they perform and please customers. In other words Grisu, they gain power through voluntary cooperation, not force.

 

[BrotherBart]

If all have access to the market T. The carrier class telcos proved that by stomping Internet ass in 1999. Infrastructure on that scale is a major bar to entry to a market. Had it not been for regulation there would only be five ISPs in the whole country not requiring a dish on your roof.

 

[Grisu]

Because a corporation's power under a capitalist system is directly linked linked to how well they perform and please customers. In other words Grisu, they gain power through voluntary cooperation, not force.

Not if they are the only source of wages AND goods and services. Free market implies two parties with equal standing; not that one party holds all the aces. There won't be voluntary cooperation even in your utopian capitalism which btw. is not really different from feudalism.

 

[Ashful]

So, now we're debating feudalism vs socialism?

 

[DBNH22]

Quite right. If someone is wealthy due to producing and selling a good or service that many people liked and bought, I have no problems with that. I have problems with someone whose wealth is mostly coming from capital gains as they did not really produce anything to improve our livelihood. (E. g. For stock market gains, they transferred other people savings to themselves.)



Interesting point. Is unchecked, mindless individualism any better? How about controlled, mindful collectivism?

I think the ideal is system is one where the average person consistently lives up to the ideal that they treat everyone else with the same respect, compassion and concern that they'd like to be treated with while simultaneously minimizing the laws and social constraints that hinder a person from living their life as they see fit to maximize their personal satisfaction, with the exceptions of behaviors that would harm others.

 

[Jags]

This whole idea that people or corporations are gonna be all glorious and righteous with rainbows flying out of their butts is so far from reality that it doesn't make for an honest conversation. How many years or examples of corporate greed and/or personal greed needs to be thrown into the ring before the idea of "corps will do what is right by the customer" to solidify the ridiculous argument that it is. IT IS NOT REALITY.

 

[DBNH22]

This whole idea that people or corporations are gonna be all glorious and righteous with rainbows flying out of their butts is so far from reality that it doesn't make for an honest conversation. How many years or examples of corporate greed and/or personal greed needs to be thrown into the ring before the idea of "corps will do what is right by the customer" to solidify the ridiculous argument that it is. IT IS NOT REALITY.

You're absolutely right but on the other hand are we all going to succumb to complete greed and say hey it's just the way it so why bother ever giving a damn about anyone but myself? There has to be some accountability and middle ground.

 

[Jags]

You're absolutely right but on the other hand are we all going to succumb to complete greed and say hey it's just the way it so why bother ever giving a damn about anyone but myself? There has to be some accountability and middle ground.

Not at all. That is why my prior post rings true. We need a responsible set of rules, regs and laws with honest enforcement of them (no special treatment). The reality of that is - it takes some government intervention to make that happen. Its just the way it is.

 

[Grisu]

I think the ideal is system is one where the average person consistently lives up to the ideal that they treat everyone else with the same respect, compassion and concern that they'd like to be treated with while simultaneously minimizing the laws and social constraints that hinder a person from living their life as they see fit to maximize their personal satisfaction, with the exceptions of behaviors that would harm others.

Sounds nice but applying it to the topic at hand: The owners of the ISPs want to maximize their "personal satisfaction" (profits) by charging more for their services. Would that behavior be harmless to others? Let's play a possible scenario through with hearth.com: With just ad generated revenue, this site would not be able to afford preferred bandwith. Over time, the site becomes slow and clunky, leading to reduced pageviews. That will impact ad revenue, which will initiate a downward spiral when hearth.com becomes a holdout of a few stubborn enthusiasts but rarely visited by the new woodburners who really need the advice given here. Or: hearth.com becomes a fee-for-service model which will prevent many newbies from even signing up and oldtimers dropping out because who wants to pay just for the bantering here?!

That's the danger when you restrict access to information and knowledge.

 

[DBNH22]

Not at all. That is why my prior post rings true. We need a responsible set of rules, regs and laws with honest enforcement of them (no special treatment).

There's the rub, there are 10,001 different definitions of reasonable.

 

[Jags]

There's the rub, there are 10,001 different definitions of reasonable.

And there always will be. Hell, we can't even get a consensus on how long it takes to season firewood.

 

[begreen]

Here is a 60 sec action item.

 

[TMonter]

Sounds nice but applying it to the topic at hand: The owners of the ISPs want to maximize their "personal satisfaction" (profits) by charging more for their services. Would that behavior be harmless to others? Let's play a possible scenario through with hearth.com: With just ad generated revenue, this site would not be able to afford preferred bandwith. Over time, the site becomes slow and clunky, leading to reduced pageviews. That will impact ad revenue, which will initiate a downward spiral when hearth.com becomes a holdout of a few stubborn enthusiasts but rarely visited by the new woodburners who really need the advice given here. Or: hearth.com becomes a fee-for-service model which will prevent many newbies from even signing up and oldtimers dropping out because who wants to pay just for the bantering here?!

That's the danger when you restrict access to information and knowledge.

And? If hearth.com can't provide enough service that people want why shouldn't it die a natural death?

 

[TMonter]

Not if they are the only source of wages AND goods and services. Free market implies two parties with equal standing; not that one party holds all the aces. There won't be voluntary cooperation even in your utopian capitalism which btw. is not really different from feudalism.

Except that corporations are not the only source of wages and goods and services now are they?

History says differently Grisu, most of the progress made has been with voluntary cooperation.

 

[webbie]

I think the ideal is system is one where the average person consistently lives up to the ideal that they treat everyone else with the same respect, compassion and concern that they'd like to be treated with while simultaneously minimizing the laws and social constraints that hinder a person from living their life as they see fit to maximize their personal satisfaction, with the exceptions of behaviors that would harm others.

They tried this one in about 26,000 B.C. and it didn't work out too well so they invented gubment. Some cave dweller decided that "respect" was popping another dude over the head and taking his mastodon meat away.


Heck, check around - see how many families (internally) live up to this creed. Now make it billions of time more complex and you can start to see the problem(s).

As my dad says "It's the best system around - but it sucks".

Heck, can't even agree on vanilla, chocolate or twist at the custard shack.

As to "net neutrality", I'm somewhat torn. The idea that a company like Netflix can come along and abuse (yes, I think that's the right word) the entire system and piggyback their profits off of others does not seem right. The idea of neutrality (equal access and speed) is all good and fine when it came to email and simple web pages - but start streaming vast amounts of full time info and the pipes are soon filled up.

We may all have equal access to the interstates, but the trucks pay vastly more in gas taxes, registration fees, etc. and they don't get their meals or showers for free at the rest stops either.

I suspect a middle ground is the answer. Those investing heavily in infrastructure deserve compensation.

I remember when Charter installed our IP phone line - they said it uses the same cable and network, but it doesn't clash with the internet traffic. I assume that's a similar thing - it uses a different channel (freq?) over the same line.

Without a lot of study on the issue, if I were King Solomon I'd say Netflix should pay big time....for the vast amount of quasi-public services they are using. As a Netflix user, paying another $1 or $2 a month in order to fairly compensate the big carriers would be fine with me.

Heck, I'm turning corporate...but it's only fair. At least so it seems...

 

[BrotherBart]

Except that the tier ones already collect from the user for tiered bandwidth now. What is going to happen now is just like with cell phones, getting paid by both the one placing the call and the one receiving receiving it at the same time.