And that's NOT how it's supposed to work! We're not supposed to punish the government for not listening to us. It becomes a vicious cycle. They're supposed to ask us NOW if we want something or not BEFORE it becomes law. Not tell us "fuck you, just don't vote for me next term".
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
US Court Rules Against FCC on `Net Neutrality'
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
And that's NOT how it's supposed to work! We're not supposed to punish the government for not listening to us. It becomes a vicious cycle. They're supposed to ask us NOW if we want something or not BEFORE it becomes law. Not tell us "fuck you, just don't vote for me next term".
Thank you!
I would love to know how many of our present government even mentioned universal health care when they were campainging...
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
This is more in line with the Mac and AT&T's way of doing business. That's why we need to rip apart these exclusive sanctioned local monopolies.
The only thing the government needs to come down on monopolies. Otherwise, the government will be telling us what is allowed/disallowed through the bandwidth.
Kind of like Enron, or the banking industry, or the telephone industry, or any other entity that is now government regulated? Business will always screw over their customers any way they can to improve their profits. Sure in a competitive market, there's some incentive not to do so - as to retain customers. But ISPs and television services are hardly a competitive market. Most towns, cities, and major areas in the country have only one or two broadband providers, and it's in their best interest to screw the hell out of the customer when there's little or no alternative. That's the reason Comcast will charge $60 for basic cable in some places and $30 in others.
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
Actually, that is exactly how it is supposed to work. You vote someone in who you hope will perform as you would like. They have the political power to use their judgment to vote as they like on your behalf. Representative democracy is not direct democracy. If you like what they are doing, you continue to vote for them and their party. If you do not, then they are no longer in power.
As I said before, businesses should only be punished on a case by case basis when they abuse customer trust. Blanket laws are dangerous and unpredictable.
How do you plan to do that when there aren't alternatives? Are you planning on building your own fiber network in every city and the remote regions of the country? Any market that has high cost barriers to entry is not going to be competitive, and therefore must be regulated.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,728
Talk about a quotation out of context. George Washington's idea of everything from what a worthy member of the community was to what "protection" of the civil government is to what constitutes "liberal" is in no way shape or form able to be determined.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,728
If you people were smarter, instead of bitching about how Comcast screws you over, take advantage of "all this money" Comcast is making. CMCSA...traded on the NASDAQ.
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
Yes, because it's unreasonable for consumers to want reasonable service and quality for their dollar. Instead, they should "just be smarter" pay for their overpriced internet and spend more money to invest in the monopoly responsible...
![[Spectre]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/89/89728.jpg?1455675927){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,854
Actually this is false. Where I lived in the late 90's we had 2 different cable companies as well as 3 different DSL providers (along with a host of other providers of ISDN and business class services) to chose from and prices were lower than what I pay today from Comcast. What happened was the government granted Comcast their local monopoly after some sort of vetting process and now that area has Comcast only and prices are much much higher than when I lived there. The high barriers were apparently not that high and the government regulating it gave us higher prices.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,728
In reality, this ruling allows for better service unless you're a heavy BitTorrent user. And yes, I mean smarter. Comcast is up 30% in the last 12 months. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind a 30% return on investment. Oh wait...you people don't like free market economics...
I really do not understand how people make the jump from all Internet traffic must be treated equal to the evil government controlling the Internet. This just makes no sense whatsoever. These rules protect the consumer and give the government nothing in the way of additional control, other than the right to fine/sanction practices that hurt consumers.
some of you make it sound like:
1. all companies are evil
2. the goal of profits for companies = evil and cannot be achieved while offering fair service
3. companies arent affected by anything people do
I get that some corporations make crappy decisions and that some ceos make bad choices, but if your going to use the evils of some to condem the many, then apply the same idea to government. government has its share of good representatives and bad, but becuase there are bad ones, all of government is evil.
Government itself isnt evil, neither are companies, but both are run by people. sometimes those people are corrupted and it affects all of us. I just feel that when a government runs into corruptions, its easier for them to do damage to the country than one corporation. Yes companies need to be kept in check, but lets not forget the other side of that too. The people that invest in companies are regular people too and even those of us that dont have a stake in a company can have a huge impact on them if we are willing to vote with our wallets.
1. all companies are evil
2. the goal of profits for companies = evil and cannot be achieved while offering fair service
3. companies arent affected by anything people do
I get that some corporations make crappy decisions and that some ceos make bad choices, but if your going to use the evils of some to condem the many, then apply the same idea to government. government has its share of good representatives and bad, but becuase there are bad ones, all of government is evil.
Government itself isnt evil, neither are companies, but both are run by people. sometimes those people are corrupted and it affects all of us. I just feel that when a government runs into corruptions, its easier for them to do damage to the country than one corporation. Yes companies need to be kept in check, but lets not forget the other side of that too. The people that invest in companies are regular people too and even those of us that dont have a stake in a company can have a huge impact on them if we are willing to vote with our wallets.
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
I have no problem with a free market that includes competitors. Unfortunately in my experience there is not nearly enough competition in the broadband market.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,728
Did you see the way the government handled the healthcare issue? All people wanted was to not have insurance companies be able to throw out high dollar cases, and we ended up with a 1700 page mess. People inherently distrust the government...lately with good reason.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,728
Fair enough, and I agree that more choice is better.
I'm not from the USA, I know very little of your healthcare debate other than the perspective from outside your country is that your way is more broken and backwards than the rest of the world's.
I have however taken a look at the FCC's net neutrality position and it seems perfectly reasonable and well thought out to me.
Absolutely wrong.
Give a company like Comcast an inch, they will take a mile, and ALL of you who argue for them will be arguing against them when they restrict content you desire. Same goes for Verizon, etc. Given the opportunity, without a doubt, EVERY one of them would eliminate their competition. Not becaues they are evil, but because they are greedy. Name a company that tries to grow for any reason other than to increase profit. Just stop it.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,854
And companies that gain market-share in a competitive market do so by offering a service or product that people choose and earn their increase. Companies (such as cable companies) that increase their market-share by the government granting them a monopoly do so by bribing the right people in government.
So which is the real problem? Providing a service people choose, or the government deciding what is best for you by providing you with a monopoly based on who paid them the most for their election campaign?
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
Again it comes down to choice, a choice that in most markets doesn't exist.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,728
So invest in said companies and profit yourself. Plus, you make it sound like profit is bad. Since when is making profit a bad thing.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,728
So backward and broken that people come to the U.S. to have surgery because of funding issues in those progressive countries like your own
.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,854
A choice that used to exist until the government interfered because they "knew better" than we did.
It's not bad. I was simply trying to make it clear that these companies aren't involved in these industries to provide you the service. They are in them to earn the profit and providing you with this service is secondary to that and it always will be. So with that being said, deregulate something this large, and it will simply take over and apply measures to increase profit margin, even if it restricts access, because there won't be anyone to stop them.
I'd be willing to bet that had they not regulated, there would be a single provider in each region and your options would be even less than you have now. It's easy to see how the regulation might have restricted growth, but it's also easy to see how it might have saved the life of some of the smaller providers.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,854
Comcast was never a small provider in that area. What they did do though was kill the smaller providers. Kind of the exact opposite of what you assume would happen.
And how exactly was that enabled by regulation? If there were no regulation, the exact same thing would happen, as there would be no regulation to stop it...
For you maybe, but for most people no, a choice has not existed in terms of broadband, ever.
well i think the sticking point here is that there are companies out there that do handle this correctly. Look how much google is pushing for the idea behind net neutrality. If a company as big as google can put its money where its mouth is and really push the idea, then why is the only answer to put more on the government's plate to regulate.
Google is rolling out their own isp in fact. Thats competition right there. And what if people actually stopped using services from companies that dont adopt the practice? Boy that would hurt their bottom line more than most fines would. The tough part is that people would refuse to do that. Instead, let regulations do what consumers wont do in large enough numbers.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,854
How? Because they were granted a local monopoly which instantly removed the competing cable companies. What part of that was unclear?
Had there been no regulation and the government had enforced the anti-trust regulations like...you know they were supposed to.....then it sure as hell would not have happened. Instead, people like yourself got what they wanted, government control of the situation and now we have one cable provider who sucks.
Cable competition was far far more prevalent in the 90's than you assume. Being 22 you never dealt with any of these issues and all you have ever known is the one company government sanctioned monopoly system so you can only assume how it worked and not how it did back then.
My ISP Throttles P2P traffic. The problem with it is, if you have a p2p application going, AND other traffic, it kills everything.
8mb connection goes to 2.5mb connection, even if other traffic is being routed over the lines. The theory is fine, the execution is what sucks.
Why they've determined that P2P applications are so drain on their already pathetic network offering options (really, under 1mb uploads makes sense, even 56k was 56k BOTH WAYS, its stupid how that works, and something I've always had issue with)
I can understand some throttling during peak hours, from 4AM is hardly peak, for anyone but me
8mb connection goes to 2.5mb connection, even if other traffic is being routed over the lines. The theory is fine, the execution is what sucks.
Why they've determined that P2P applications are so drain on their already pathetic network offering options (really, under 1mb uploads makes sense, even 56k was 56k BOTH WAYS, its stupid how that works, and something I've always had issue with)
I can understand some throttling during peak hours, from 4AM is hardly peak, for anyone but me
You make it sound like company profits arent based on consumers actually buying what they are selling. their service is DIRECTLY tied to profit.
You are painting every company as greedy, evil intenties that dont care what the people want and somehow profit from that. Apple succeeds becuase they offered something people want. Apple may not be 'nice' and they may like making profit, but they wouldnt be making any profit if their products were garbage.
I mean heck, cant you say the exact same thing about government? Government doesnt make 'profit' , but they sure as heck want to bring in more and more money for them to use on various programs. They can be every bit as greedy.
This whole issue boils down to people wanting cheaper services or more choices in services. From hearing all the different angles, its obvious that both some corporations and the government have led to the issues we have today. I mean wouldnt you rather see some company come in and offer the services you want without having to resort to regulations? Comcast has some crappy policies, but they arent the old game in town. With the growth of cell phone internet services in the home and Google wanting to launch their own ISP, it seems like options beyond comcast, etc, are developing, slowly but surely.
RumpleForeSkin
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 228
Liberal from Google Search Liberal:define
broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
So how was I misinterpreting that again?
Some of us are busy paying rent with reduced wages and increased costs of living to try and invest in a market that has already proven itself unreliable several times over
Wrong.. Comcast is the only provider of high speed internet i my area, the company has an exclusivity contract with the city that goes back to the mediaone days, DSL is not offered due to the last mile. Other towns in my state have fought with the major providers and managed to get some competition, of course those towns are labeled as Lefty and Socialist by the capitalists.
It's pretty hilarious that no one has read the opinion or cares about the commerce clause, it seems.
The only thing the FCC needs to do is turn the internet into a Title 2 entity and they have far more liberty to regulate it, and yes, that power is granted to the Legislative Branch under Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution, and regulatory authority is therefore granted to the FCC by the Communications Act.
The application of the commerce clause need not be selective- it prevented buses from segregating before the Civil Rights Act was passed, and in the earliest years upheld the right to regulate trade between states after the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation.
And as has been pointed out before, it was the FCC under the Bush administration that got this ball rolling. Blame Obama for whatever you want, but don't attempt to retroactively brand this a partisan issue.
The only thing the FCC needs to do is turn the internet into a Title 2 entity and they have far more liberty to regulate it, and yes, that power is granted to the Legislative Branch under Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution, and regulatory authority is therefore granted to the FCC by the Communications Act.
The application of the commerce clause need not be selective- it prevented buses from segregating before the Civil Rights Act was passed, and in the earliest years upheld the right to regulate trade between states after the disaster that was the Articles of Confederation.
And as has been pointed out before, it was the FCC under the Bush administration that got this ball rolling. Blame Obama for whatever you want, but don't attempt to retroactively brand this a partisan issue.
And again, not to scare the anti-government crowd too much here, but:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/
I think the problem is that the term liberal has been corrupted by those politicians that have servered under the title. Your exactly correct on the meaning though and many many many years ago, liberal was a completely different animal in the world of politics to what is today.
And yet here we are arguing over having access to highspeed internet. Now i know internet is important to us all, but I have had to disable my service when i couldnt afford it, so i know that sometimes, hard choices have to be made. Among the things we need to survive, internet access certainly isnt at the top. Look at cable service too. People compalin about the cost from the likes of Comcast (myself included) and we now have many options for getting our media elsewhere as we see fit.
So your city agreed to a contract with comcast for exclusivity and that is the basis for blaming comcast? Sounds like your city is every bit as at fault here. In my city (knoxville, tn) we actually have three cable isps (knology, comcast, charter), dsl and fiber(at&t), so its obvious that lack of competition isnt the same everywhere. plus i have a feeling we are going to see alot more people start to use cel phone internet services as their only isp. With Verizon's LTE and AT&T's 4G services, that could be the competition every has been clamoring for.