Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
FCC: Net Neutrality Critics Are Flat-Out Wrong
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Every Republican Sin is a Papal Indulgence for the Democrat President. That's how it works? Then ultimately no one does anything wrong because there's always something wrong the other guy did that excuses it
And when the world around you turns into a shit pile by these unaccountable gentlemen, that principle will come full circle because it will be no one else's fault, but yours.
Yes Correction to attempt to invent reasons why they need new rules (8 pages) they spend 300+ pages inventing problems that don't exist.
Wired
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,841
well the world is going to end then, better take your suicide pill now
fitfy
It's 8 pages. The other pages are comments required by law. Also, the holdup in it's release are two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike ORielly who won't submit edits to the order. The FCC can't release it until all the commissioners submit.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,604
That's the issue: he's not the token Republican. I suspect that since some of his views are more mainstream than his father's, that Rand will garner a bit more support, but ultimately I don't see him getting the nomination. Typically we are left with the choices of either big government as run by Democrats or big government as run by Republicans, both of which are beholden to monied corporate interests.
The FCC's move looks good in theory, but as with all things government, we will have to see the actual implementation (enforcement) before we can draw definite conclusions. There is no doubt in my mind that there have been shenanigans in the past on the parts of both the ISPs and the government, resulting in where we find things today. To me, it looks like the FCC had little choice but to go down this path given the circumstances, so I am tentatively in favor of the change.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
A recurring problem for you, it seems.
It's the ISPs own customers requesting Netflix's content. The only reason the ISP even has customers is so they can access internet content such as Netflix. Therefore, it is the ISPs responsibility to upgrade their equipment to provide adequate service for their customers without holding particular sites hostage. Plenty of ISPs like Google Fiber have no problem doing this.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I think it is a difficult balancing act so that we don't prevent business from competing more effectively. Things like "slow lanes" or excluding new services should be prevented as they are non-competitive. However, a fast lane is competitive where different services must differentiate themselves from each other. Implementing the internet equivalent of "No Child Left Behind" does not benefit anyone. If Netflix feels that they need to push 4K content to be more competitive and they are willing to pay the ISPs to facilitate and prioritize their service over their competitors to accommodate that goal (don't slow the others down but allow Netflix to make changes that allow their service to go faster) then they should have that right. Attempting to keep everyone equal tends to force everyone down to the lowest common denominator not up to the highest common denominator. The current system is certainly broken and some changes are needed but we need to be careful what sort of Frankenstein's Monster we create.
I think it is a difficult balancing act so that we don't prevent business from competing more effectively. Things like "slow lanes" or excluding new services should be prevented as they are non-competitive. However, a fast lane is competitive where different services must differentiate themselves from each other. Implementing the internet equivalent of "No Child Left Behind" does not benefit anyone. If Netflix feels that they need to push 4K content to be more competitive and they are willing to pay the ISPs to facilitate and prioritize their service over their competitors to accommodate that goal (don't slow the others down but allow Netflix to make changes that allow their service to go faster) then they should have that right. Attempting to keep everyone equal tends to force everyone down to the lowest common denominator not up to the highest common denominator. The current system is certainly broken and some changes are needed but we need to be careful what sort of Frankenstein's Monster we create.
Theres no such thing as a fast lane without a slow lane
D
Deleted member 108676
Guest
I don't know whats worse? Government intervention, or rich companies making it to where start-ups can't get their content out because they can pay to play.
I truly don't know how I feel about this. I'm against big government. I'm also against big money making it impossible for start ups to compete. The internet is vastly different then a start up bakery renting a store and putting up a sign. Everyone can see the sign from the road for free, on the internet, if you can't afford to pay the correct people to get your content out, no one can see it.
I truly don't know how I feel about this. I'm against big government. I'm also against big money making it impossible for start ups to compete. The internet is vastly different then a start up bakery renting a store and putting up a sign. Everyone can see the sign from the road for free, on the internet, if you can't afford to pay the correct people to get your content out, no one can see it.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
Guess what let's big money get to set the rules for the little guy: Government.
D
Deleted member 108676
Guest
^There is no correct answer to this...so I'm just a little guy trying to learn more about the subject.
Really? Maybe you should pull your head out of the sand and look at the actual facts and stop drinking the mainstream media koolaid. I personally know small business owners who are directly affected by the "Affordable" Care Act.
More: http://mic.com/articles/60661/7-companies-that-have-to-lay-off-employees-to-deal-with-obamacare
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
right now people are hoping the federal government is the recourse to correct the mistakes local governments made getting into bed with 'big money'.
what is the recourse when the federal government fucks it up?
what is the recourse when the federal government fucks it up?
D
Deleted member 108676
Guest
Boston tea party
I think it is a difficult balancing act so that we don't prevent business from competing more effectively. Things like "slow lanes" or excluding new services should be prevented as they are non-competitive. However, a fast lane is competitive where different services must differentiate themselves from each other. Implementing the internet equivalent of "No Child Left Behind" does not benefit anyone. If Netflix feels that they need to push 4K content to be more competitive and they are willing to pay the ISPs to facilitate and prioritize their service over their competitors to accommodate that goal (don't slow the others down but allow Netflix to make changes that allow their service to go faster) then they should have that right. Attempting to keep everyone equal tends to force everyone down to the lowest common denominator not up to the highest common denominator. The current system is certainly broken and some changes are needed but we need to be careful what sort of Frankenstein's Monster we create.
ISP's were not going to create fast lanes. What they wanted to do was throttle everything down except what pays them the most.
The fast lane concept was designed to sound better to the populace, when in reality it is a slow lane they would be creating.
The fed largely already is in bed with big money, that's why this ruling is such a surprise. 6 months ago it looked like Wheeler was ready to sell the American people down the river on this. As for recourse, there is none, short of revolt, but that's unlikely to happen since the country is so brainwashed to not be able to agree on the sky being blue. So what will happen is big money will get its way more and more while everyone else continues to get screwed.
Hrmm the founding fathers seemed to feel the opposite on this.
They thought the corporations were the money sucking bastards that always take advantage and fuck people over.
Oh and they were right as well.
The FCC is a politically appointed body with three Democrats and two Republicans who all vote straight party lines. The influence of the FCC is politicizing the Internet--and that's a very bad thing. Like most of the government's bureaucrats, these people were not elected by anyone to do anything. We're not talking about limited on-air broadcast frequencies that require the FCC to act as a sort of referee among the competing companies--the Internet has theoretically limitless resources and established itself quite efficiently without the slightest need for government aid of any kind. Simply put, the global Internet doesn't need the FCC's guidance for a single thing that comes to mind.
The problem Wheeler has, in my view, is Title II--Wheeler has already stated that the FCC will be changing Title II *drastically*--because first of all, the myriad number of companies making up the Internet are not a single telephone company controlled through a government-created monopoly (like AT&T was), and secondly, the FCC several years ago had already classified the Internet as an Information Service.
How can wheeler *change* Title II from the Title II Congress approved early in the last century for telephone companies? Doesn't seem like he has the authority to do that without Congress, but that's what he's stated many times he's going to do--because he has to, because Title II as it sits doesn't address the ISPs at all.
I'd say that if the ISPs don't object, that Wheeler is right and there's so little to this regulation that it might as well have never been attempted in the first place. But if they object and take it to court, I'd say the FCC has already lost its bid to move the Internet under government tyranny--which might be very mild at first, but will escalate to something very ugly later on.
Best to keep the FCC out of the Internet, imo.
Hopefully it has occurred to you that without those "money-sucking bastards" there'd be no computers and no Internet and many other things you take for granted would never have been developed (cell phones, smart phones, automobiles, jets, ad infintum.) You must be a Luddite...
You might also look at the fact that what people buy from the "money-sucking bastards" is purchased voluntarily, but when Uncle Sam sends his tax bills he does so at the point of a gun and if you want to keep your private property private--you pay Uncle Sam whatever he asks--year after year after year. But unlike you and I, there is no legal requirement for Uncle Sam to balance his checkbook--and when he needs more he just prints it and kites bad checks for it. (You and I do that, and we go to jail.)
Indeed, if not for the taxes paid by the "money-sucking bastards" and their employees in the US, there wouldn't be much of a government to worry over--and, btw, most of the founding fathers were quite well-off financially themselves.
Well it's not working in it's current implementation either, so doing nothing isn't an option. Self regulation obviously failed, and like most of the country i'm getting screwed by the 1 provider I have available in my super secluded city with so few people(los angeles....) So what's the solution if not regulation? It's not like I can vote with my wallet.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
Considering that when our country was founded in the early 1780's the majority of the labor force (about 90%) were farmers I don't think industry was even on our founding fathers radar ... for all their money sucking qualities these corporations and businesses account for the vast majority of employment in this country
Not true at all. There are tons of regulations that enforce something that should have been done anyway. Meaning the cost of compliance should have been factored in during the very beginning.
For example, I don't like tasting shit and piss in my food. Therefore there are regulations that tell people who handle food to wash their nasty hands before making my burger. Did the regulation increase the cost of doing business or did the regulations enforce proper hygiene so the establishment's food didn't give me and any one else who ate there Typhoid?
I would guess that everyone catching Typhoid would be more expensive than buying a bar of soap and posting a sign.
mynamehere
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,763
I foresee it being yet another good idea gone horribly wrong in the end.
Hopefully it has occurred to you that without those "money-sucking bastards" there'd be no computers and no Internet and many other things you take for granted would never have been developed (cell phones, smart phones, automobiles, jets, ad infintum.) You must be a Luddite...
This notion that private sector does everything by itself is absurd. It bothers me greatly because it means that there is a portion of our populous that honestly doesn't know the history of anything, They don't really know how our government works, and they don't have foggiest clue on how they got to work today, much less why their house is built where it is.
Since our country's inception there has always been a sort of symbiotic relationship between the two. At no time has the country as a whole functioned without both of them.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
News flash, they didn't.
I think some people would argue that consumers should decide for themselves whether or not they want shit in their food and the free market will sort out the winners and losers, with companies that have less of a reputation for shit in their food finding their place in the food market.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
I highly doubt you would find a single sane person that would argue that... ever...
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
You can take libertarian concepts to their extreme and that is a good example ... one can have valid arguments over things like departments of transportation and education, but I don't think anyone really wants to return to the days of Sinclair Lewis' "The Jungle" ... food inspection and restaurant inspection are actually valid uses of government resources since they can guarantee both a consistency of hygiene as well as protect the safety of consumers ...
although I am generally very pro market there are definite limits,I do not (for example) feel that we need to remove car safety and airline safety regulations and try and sort out which vehicles or airlines are best by their lower fatality rates ... some government functions actually do work and provide value to the constituent population
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
re: food shit
It would be easy to have a market version of food inspection without the force of government, on small local levels. Independent agency inspection that was agreed to between a restaurant and their insurer. I can imagine a form of competition between restaurants which creates an incentive for multiple inspections from multiple agencies, and an incentive between those agencies to strive for tougher and tougher strictures as another form of competition. The tougher the standard, the more value the customer places on that agency, and any food prepared under their guidance. The more value that agency has, the more discount is given to restaurants that meet those standards, payed out by the insurer.
Incentives are neat.
Just like current regulations, it would not be an infallible mechanism to keep shit out of food.
It would be easy to have a market version of food inspection without the force of government, on small local levels. Independent agency inspection that was agreed to between a restaurant and their insurer. I can imagine a form of competition between restaurants which creates an incentive for multiple inspections from multiple agencies, and an incentive between those agencies to strive for tougher and tougher strictures as another form of competition. The tougher the standard, the more value the customer places on that agency, and any food prepared under their guidance. The more value that agency has, the more discount is given to restaurants that meet those standards, payed out by the insurer.
Incentives are neat.
Just like current regulations, it would not be an infallible mechanism to keep shit out of food.