Internet and FCC/Government

[dbair1967]

I'm sure that's why George Soros threw 200 mils or so at pro net neutrality support Hoof, he just wants it to be "consumer friendly"

 

[Hoofbite]

I'm sure that's why George Soros threw 200 mils or so at pro net neutrality support Hoof, he just wants it to be "consumer friendly"

So you haven't read them and don't know what "consumer friendly" would mean in this context?

Par for the course, David.

May I ask a question. Simple one. What exactly has either party ever done for you, or to you, that warrants the blind support you provide for one group and the blind hatred that you spew at the other?

 

[dbair1967]

Yes I have read the supposed upside to the Net Neutrality deal, but I have also read about all the potential downsides and government being involved again tells me there is a 99.9% chance it wont be good FOR THE PEOPLE.

And for the record I pretty much hate both sides of the aisle. I absolutely don't agree with anything the extreme left throws out there and I am extremely dissatisfied with the typical Republican that gets elected and hogs up seats up there as well. They don't stand for anything and have absolutely zero balls when it comes for standing up for whats right. They end up going out of control with spending just like the left wing idiots.

In the end the major problem with both sides is they go up there to make it a career, rather than do things to help the country. Until they fix that, nothing is going to change for the better.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yes I have read the supposed upside to the Net Neutrality deal, but I have also read about all the potential downsides and government being involved again tells me there is a 99.9% chance it wont be good FOR THE PEOPLE.

Why won't it? Give me 1 reason why it will not be good for the people.

 

[dbair1967]

Why won't it? Give me 1 reason why it will not be good for the people.

come on Hoof...I know you've read this stuff

 

[Hoofbite]

Here are some of the rules.

1. Clear, Bright-Line Rules

Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service.

In short: No blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization of content. These are all things that ISPs have done that are unquestionably harmful to the consumer.

2. No Unreasonable Interference or Unreasonable Disadvantage to Consumers or Edge Providers

The key insight of the virtuous cycle is that broadband providers have both the incentive and the ability to act as gatekeepers standing between edge providers and consumers. As gatekeepers, they can block access altogether; they can target competitors, including competitors to their own video services; and they can extract unfair tolls. Such conduct would, as the Commission concluded in 2010, “reduce the rate of innovation at the edge and, in turn, the likely rate of improvements to network infrastructure.” In other words, when a broadband provider acts as a gatekeeper, it actually chokes consumer demand for the very broadband product it can supply.

In short: ISPs cannot control the flow of traffic to and from content providers. Edge Providers are all the mega content providers. Google, Amazon, iTunes, Netflix. ISPs cannot fiddle with the delivery of their content in any way. This is harmful to both the provider and the consumer and they've already been caught doing it. Furthermore, all the bullshit about innovating can be thrown right out the window. If content requires "X Mbps" of bandwidth, and providers strangle the available bandwidth to just "X-1 Mbps", content providers cannot deliver and innovation slows.

3. Enhanced Transparency

4. Scope of the Rules

5. Enforcement

These are pretty self-explanatory. The rules are pretty much summed up as, "don't fuck with the internet".

 

[dbair1967]

Yeah I heard/read about it.

As I said originally the only issue I have with my internet access is I consider it a little too pricey, otherwise it functions just fine. I don't see where anything in this net neutrality stuff helps me one bit.

The detractors of this have valid concerns and when I see the lengths Obama and his people went to keep this under wraps plus news of how Soros threw 200 mil or so at promoting this, sorry but I smell a rat.

 

[Hoofbite]

come on Hoof...I know you've read this stuff

Of course I have read it. I want to know what you are concerned about.

Taxes? There's been a law on the books since 1998 that prevents any new taxes on the internet. It was set to expire December 2014, got pushed back a bit, and luckily they revoted and made it permanent under the name "Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act" Apparently it was brought about by 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats so good on both sides for taking the smart approach.

But that's not the whole story which is why you see varying reports of potential tax hikes. From like $4B to $15B, with $15B representing the absolute - and unlikely - extreme of the issue. From what I have read, the decision to implement any sort of taxes with be on a state-by-state basis by taxing these companies as a utility. Most of these companies already offer phone service so you would think (and I don't know for sure) that they're already implementing these taxes and they're included in your current monthly bill for phone service.

What it comes down to is, if you're state representatives sell you out then you may have additional charges provided the tax hit could double dip to apply for each utility.

But the issue of taxes is a red herring. Absent Net Neutrality, the price of services would have gone up anyway. Either directly through package add-ons to remove throttling and blocking, or indirectly in the form of increase subscription prices from Edge Providers, the price of internet services would have gone up. This is indisputable. They were taking money from Netflix to deliver their content as they should have. Do you think Netflix is going to sit back and make less money on account of a middle man bending them over? No, they'd just spread the cost around to everyone. They'd also probably scale back their library more than they already do until it really started to impact subscription rates.

So even if the price of your internet has not changed, the price of content has increased. I think it's almost a given that they'd work both ends of the connection. Charge providers to deliver the content, and sell add-on packages to subscribers that allow consistent access. Everyone gets fucked.

Pretending that taxes will in fact increase, here are the possible situations.

1. ISPs charge more and customers pay more.

2. State governments implement taxes.

Of these two options, which one do you actually have a say in? Damn sure don't have any say in what Comcast does. At least you vote some asshole out of office if they decide to sell you out.

The last part of this issue that is confusing for me is this is a lynchpin to the Republican argument against Net Neutrality. If it comes down to the state level, who the fuck hates taxes more than Republicans? They would never ever vote for such a tax, and yet their passing it off as though it is a certainty. If you don't want tax hikes, don't fucking tax people. Pretty simple.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yeah I heard/read about it.

As I said originally the only issue I have with my internet access is I consider it a little too pricey, otherwise it functions just fine. I don't see where anything in this net neutrality stuff helps me one bit.

The detractors of this have valid concerns and when I see the lengths Obama and his people went to keep this under wraps plus news of how Soros threw 200 mil or so at promoting this, sorry but I smell a rat.

It helps you because your service won't be diminished. Isn't that obvious?

It also helps you because neither consumers or providers will have to pay (payment by providers being passed to consumers) for priority.

Yes, you like your internet now. The very same internet that the FCC has been regulating in spite of them being not found to have the authority to last January. They have been regulating the internet. They have been implementing rules 1 and 2. That's what the entire thing came down to. ISPs blocked and throttled, and the FCC told them to quit. Then it went to the courts.

To put it plainly, it benefits you because your internet will not change when the alternative is change for the worse.

 

[dbair1967]

I don't consider my service diminished in any way, shape or form as it is now. Like I said the only negative to the service I have currently (in my opinion) is price. I've had two ISP's since I moved in this house almost 10 yrs ago. I've had one very minor service issue and one price increase.

The government doesn't do anything that's cost effective or efficient. I don't why you think its going to somehow change decades and decades of history in this case.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't consider my service diminished in any way, shape or form as it is now. Like I said the only negative to the service I have currently (in my opinion) is price. I've had two ISP's since I moved in this house almost 10 yrs ago. I've had one very minor service issue and one price increase.

The government doesn't do anything that's cost effective or efficient. I don't why you think its going to somehow change decades and decades of history in this case.

Of course you haven't noticed anything. ISPs have been in a legal battle with the FCC to determine whether or not the FCC could regulate them. The issue was up in the air and ISPs couldn't implement these measures even after winning in court because the ruling judge pretty much said, "just reclassify them".

The Internet you know has been regulated for almost a decade in the exact same manner it will be now. They went to court because the FCC was regulating a non-utility. How many times do I have to point this out? Had Net Neutrality failed, all this bullshit would have become standard practice.

It was a battle about where the Internet is going to go, not where it's been.

It's been open. With Net Neutrality it stays open.

As far as cost effective or efficient, they aren't doing anything. They're creating rules and that's it. They aren't taking over Comcast or establishing some publically funded nation wide network. They are using Title II to implement the rules that they were already enforcing.

I have no idea what you think they're doing, but I'm quite certain it's far from reality.

 

[dbair1967]

Hoof, your belief in government is obviously much higher than mine. Personally I think that's incredibly naïve, but that's your choice.

 

[JBond]

David. The President doesn't run the FCC.

I guess that is why Obama bragged that they passed his plan.

 

[JBond]

Why won't it? Give me 1 reason why it will not be good for the people.

The new taxes the FCC chairman discussed a few days ago will increase costs. Name a utility that became less expensive due to government interference.

Government interference in Europe is the reason they are a decade behind us regarding speed and innovation.

 

[Hoofbite]

The new taxes the FCC chairman discussed a few days ago will increase costs. Name a utility that became less expensive due to government interference.

Government interference in Europe is the reason they are a decade behind us regarding speed and innovation.

They'd be at a local level. Write your state leaders. If he hadn't fucked up Kansas' budget so much in the first place, I'd confidently say it's something you won't have to worry about your Governor doing.

 

[dbair1967]

Hoof, maybe you arnt naïve after all. Maybe you are a just a left wing homer.

 

[Hoofbite]

Hoof, maybe you arnt naïve after all. Maybe you are a just a left wing homer.

This is why you can't be taken seriously when you say you hate "both sides of the aisle". When's the last time you called someone a "right wing" homer?

You may disagree with some republican policies (probably because they aren't "right enough"), but I bet you can't even recall the last democrat position that you didn't find an argument for.

I have no idea what issue you could possibly have with my statement about Kansas. Brownback has put them in a shitty spot. There's really no denying it. I'm sure JBond could share a little more, but as a former resident of Kansas I pay a little attention myself.

Dude has put the state in a hole and they've been cutting money left and right. Highway fund, K-12 funding, University funding, pension funds, and diverted money for health and environment programs earned via health and environment fees to cover the shortfall. He's also proposed tax increases on liquor and alcohol.

That's why I say I'm not so sure if he would pass on sliding another tax into the mix. The dude is desperate to cover his economic plan's massive deficit and if he'll raise taxes on consumption items like booze and cigs, he's probably going to tax ISPs as a utility.

Wanna know how desperate he really is? He campaigned on anti-Obamacare rhetoric. His state did not expand Medicaid, but earlier this month when asked he basically said, "I never said we wouldn't expand, but I never said we would".

This guy may actually take advantage of Obamacare because it will save his state money even though he is strictly anti-Obamacare.

 

[dbair1967]

The states run by hard left people are performing FAR worse than those in the middle or on the right Hoof.

 

[Hoofbite]

The states run by hard left people are performing FAR worse than those in the middle or on the right Hoof.

That's not even related to why I said anything about Kansas. Nobody was arguing for or against D or R economic policy.

I mentioned Kansas because it's a R state, which would probably not favor additional taxes so JBond shouldnt have anything to worry about. Given Kansas' downturn however, he's probably fucked.

That's all I was getting at.