# The FCC Just Approved A Proposal That Will Completely Change The Internet As We Know It



## DRDNA (May 15, 2014)

"REUTERS

A win for the big guys.

The FCC voted today 3-2 to approve creation of an "internet fast lane."

This will have massive ramifications for how all internet companies operate in the future."


I wonder how much kick back money or lobby money or what ever bribe it took to make this happen?



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-just-approved-proposal-completely-160754565.html


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2014)

They approved of something that already occurs so this will not change anything. The only thing it changes is the increased government beaucracy to create more problems down the line.


----------



## remixedcat (May 15, 2014)

#thanksobama


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 15, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> They approved of something that already occurs so this will not change anything. The only thing it changes is the increased government beaucracy to create more problems down the line.



Wrong.

As long as an isp can provide *up to* the speed a consumer pays, they will be okay.  Now it has the government's stamp of approval.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> Wrong.
> 
> As long as an isp can provide *up to* the speed a consumer pays, they will be okay.  Now it has the government's stamp of approval.



Did I say that wasn't true? The ISPs already provide fast lanes to companies like Netflix, the FCC just said it was OK to do.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 15, 2014)

Another link:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/fcc-fast-lane/index.html


I saw this on CNN a while back and it is exactly what is going to happen:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/13/technology/internet-fast-lanes/index.html

1. Higher Costs - America already pays more than most countries for worse service.

2. Slower Speeds - America is ranked somewhere around 30th for internet speed globally and we're falling, fast.  This decision ensures that trend continues by encouraging ISPs to charge out the ass for bandwidth and give it to shareholders instead of improving infrastructure.

3. Prioritized Content - Comcast is going to boost it's owned content (like NBC) and slow it's competitor's content (like ABC/Disney).

4. Better service for some applications - basically QoS and they already do this.  The FCC did not need to intervene on this front.




Easy Rhino said:


> Did I say that wasn't true? The ISPs already provide fast lanes to companies like Netflix, the FCC just said it was OK to do.


What this FCC ruling does is tell Comcast it can charge Netflix directly for using so much bandwidth.  If Netflix doesn't pay, Comcast can throttle Netflix down to, well, nothing.  If Netflix doesn't pay up, expect online videos to get choppy and grainy from compression.

Netflix does need a fat connection to the internet which they paid for before this ruling and will continue to pay for after this ruling.  The difference is assholes like Comcast, whom has competing services, can price Netflix out of their market.  If you like YouTube, Netflix, and everything else that uses lots of bandwidth (I bet Valve is going to get strung up too), you might find you're ability to use those services greatly diminished because of these rules that are pro-big-media, anti-internet/consumer.


If you like the internet, it is time to think about leaving the USA.  This shit is only going to get worse.  Comcast is already talking about imposing a 350-500 GB limit on all accounts regardless of how fast the connection you're paying for is.  My pathetic ADSL connection can handle more than 1 TB/month.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 15, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> They approved of something that already occurs so this will not change anything.



This will change things for the consumer in a big way, how could it not?

This will guarantee that an isp can provide less speed and not get in trouble, charge companies e.g. Netflix for "faster lanes" at the expense of residential consumers, and increase costs to said consumers.


----------



## Arjai (May 15, 2014)

This sucks. What ever happened to the ideals of this country? Somewhere back in the Reagan era, things began to fail us, the people. Now it is so common it is ignored and treated as if it is normal.

It is not Normal! It is the strangulation of the rights of the American people, it continues to become worse as Big Money and Big Companies buy the votes they need to pass these draconian measures. 

I don't know the answer but, my bet is on a house cleaning of a violent nature. Don't know when, hope I am already retired to Italy, when it happens. 

Sorry, I am a bit old to take up arms, or rather a bit unwilling because I am getting older. Anyways, I hope this can sort itself out in other ways but, as far as it has come, not sure how else to get things changed to, For the people, By the People. Like it should be.

/Rant

Whew, didn't know I had the vinegar!


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Another link:
> http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/15/technology/fcc-fast-lane/index.html
> 
> 
> ...



All of those things have happened because local governments grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.



> What this FCC ruling does is tell Comcast it can charge Netflix directly for using so much bandwidth.  If Netflix doesn't pay, Comcast can throttle Netflix down to, well, nothing.  If Netflix doesn't pay up, expect online videos to get choppy and grainy from compression.



This already happens and Netflix is more than willing to pay. How is it a problem?



> Netflix does need a fat connection to the internet which they paid for before this ruling and will continue to pay for after this ruling.  The difference is assholes like Comcast, whom has competing services, can price Netflix out of their market.  If you like YouTube, Netflix, and everything else that uses lots of bandwidth (I bet Valve is going to get strung up too), you might find you're ability to use those services greatly diminished because of these rules that are pro-big-media, anti-internet/consumer.



This will only be an issue if local governments continue to grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.




> If you like the internet, it is time to think about leaving the USA.  This shit is only going to get worse.  Comcast is already talking about imposing a 350-500 GB limit on all accounts regardless of how fast the connection you're paying for is.  My pathetic ADSL connection can handle more than 1 TB/month.



The FCC cannot fix the problem. In fact, net neutrality will only strengthen the hold Comcast and others have by increasing the barrier to entry now.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

Obviously we need more big government and regulation to fix this. Its worked out awesome for our combat vets and health care. We should apply it to everything.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (May 15, 2014)

damn. good thing we dont that in korea.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Obviously we need more big government and regulation to fix this. Its worked out awesome for our combat vets and health care. We should apply it to everything.



Don't you know that government regulation can only make things better, never worse


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 15, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> All of those things have happened because local governments grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.


The problem stems from internet providers (e.g. Comcast) not being separate from content providers (e.g. NBC).



Easy Rhino said:


> This already happens and Netflix is more than willing to pay. How is it a problem?


You think Netflix had a choice?  If Netflix didn't sign the dotted line on Comcast's blackmail, Netflix was going to lose millions of subscribers.



Easy Rhino said:


> This will only be an issue if local governments continue to grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.


As if "local governments" had a choice either.  They let Comcast, Time Warner, and these other monolithic corporations in because they provide a service the locale needs.  The problem is they're so massive, they crush all existing local ISPs which leads to the monopoly.  Then, as people discover how shady Comcast is, they want to leave but can't because everyone else closed up shop.  Anti-trust regulators in Washington, D.C., have been asleep for a long time.  It's their job to break monolithic companies like Comcast apart so smaller outfits can compete.  Local governments become the victims here.  The problem is much larger than they can tackle.



Easy Rhino said:


> The FCC cannot fix the problem. In fact, net neutrality will only strengthen the hold Comcast and others have by increasing the barrier to entry now.


Yes, it can.  The consumer bill of rights was the right thing to do but internal politics (and likely a massive amount of lobbying) drove all the nails into that coffin.  Net neutrality means no bandwidth caps, no filtering internet traffic, no charging servers for serving data, and no scrutinizing packet data beyond routing.  It would hurt Comcast more than any other ISP out there because they're the ones doing these things.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Obviously we need more big government and regulation to fix this. Its worked out awesome for our combat vets and health care. We should apply it to everything.


We need fewer regulations and more explicit rights belonging to the people (like privacy and net neutrality).  This puts disputes in the realm of the judicial branch instead of legislative.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 15, 2014)

This already happens and Netflix is more than willing to pay. How is it a problem?

This will only be an issue if local governments continue to grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.

The FCC cannot fix the problem. In fact, net neutrality will only strengthen the hold Comcast and others have by increasing the barrier to entry now.[/QUOTE]



1.  All this can be made clearer if the FCC reclassifies internet access an *UTILITY of the 21st century*, under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.  I am aware there are loopholes in that, but Congress hopefully can figure how to fix those .

2.  Remove murky BS like* “commercially reasonable but discriminatory deals*" that the providers can sign at will.  I am not opposed to Netflix paying more bc they take 30+% of evening broadband traffic in the US.

3.  Local government [if possible] should be stripped of granting these kinds of things and allow at the state level competitive bidding in one shot [not lowest qualified bidder crap neither].


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We need fewer regulations and more explicit rights belonging to the people (like privacy and net neutrality).  This puts disputes in the realm of the judicial branch instead of legislative.


 You're crazy a massive centralized government setting blanket rules and regulation is the only way to go. Only people who believe a government can be corrupted want less regulation. Sounds to me like terrorist talk. Only terrorist want less government and regulation.


----------



## CJCerny (May 15, 2014)

The FCC just formally approved a proposal. The process is far from approved or over. Relax. Contact your Congressman and let them know how you feel.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The problem stems from internet providers (e.g. Comcast) not being separate from content providers (e.g. NBC).



I think that is a moot point. Comcast was charging for a fast lane before they bought NBC.




> You think Netflix had a choice?  If Netflix didn't sign the dotted line on Comcast's blackmail, Netflix was going to lose millions of subscribers.



It doesn't matter if Netflix had a choice. Netflix is a business that uses bandwidth. They pay for better access as they should.




> As if "local governments" had a choice either.  They let Comcast, Time Warner, and these other monolithic corporations in because they provide a service the locale needs.  The problem is they're so massive, they crush all existing local ISPs which leads to the monopoly.  Then, as people discover how shady Comcast is, they want to leave but can't because everyone else closed up shop.  Anti-trust regulators in Washington, D.C., have been asleep for a long time.  It's their job to break monolithic companies like Comcast apart so smaller outfits can compete.  Local governments become the victims here.  The problem is much larger than they can tackle.



Comcast is very aggressive. Nothing wrong with an aggressive company so long as they play by the rules and they did.




> Yes, it can.  The consumer bill of rights was the right thing to do but internal politics (and likely a massive amount of lobbying) drove all the nails into that coffin.  Net neutrality means no bandwidth caps, no filtering internet traffic, no charging servers for serving data, and no scrutinizing packet data beyond routing.  It would hurt Comcast more than any other ISP out there because they're the ones doing these things.



Net Neutrality means a higher Internet bill for everyone then and much slower access to services like Netflix.



Hilux SSRG said:


> 1.  All this can be made clearer if the FCC reclassifies internet access an *UTILITY of the 21st century*, under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.  I am aware there are loopholes in that, but Congress hopefully can figure how to fix those .
> 
> 2.  Remove murky BS like* “commercially reasonable but discriminatory deals*" that the providers can sign at will.  I am not opposed to Netflix paying more bc they take 30+% of evening broadband traffic in the US.
> 
> 3.  Local government [if possible] should be stripped of granting these kinds of things and allow at the state level competitive bidding in one shot [not lowest qualified bidder crap neither].



If the FCC reclassifiies the internet then you will see Comcast grow even larger as it owns the infrastructure and will be severely limited by government forces on what it can charge. So you can kiss innovation goodbye.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

CJCerny said:


> The FCC just formally approved a proposal. The process is far from approved or over. Relax. Contact your Congressman and let them know how you feel.


Why would I bother contacting him? He knows whats best for me. Just tell me where to send the check. Better yet deduct it from my pay like everything else is now.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Why would I bother contacting him? He knows whats best for me. Just tell me where to send the check. Better yet deduct it from my pay like everything else is now.



While we are at it, you shouldn't be allowed to pay for priority shipping either. That medical device that you need to get across the globe goes in the same bin as the one containing your neighbors letter to his grammy.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> While we are at it, you shouldn't be allowed to pay for priority shipping either. That medical device that you need to get across the globe goes in the same bin as the one containing your neighbors letter to his grammy.


Of course man. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Its just common sense.


----------



## silkstone (May 15, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> This already happens and Netflix is more than willing to pay. How is it a problem?


They were not more than willing to pay, they fought against it tooth and nail. After the deal, they increased subscription charges.

The big deal is that now the ISPs are being paid twice for the same service. Once by you, then a second time by content providers. The content providers are more than willing to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance that comes with increased bandwidth requirements, but ISPs want them to pay for access to their customer base. (while their customer base already pays for access to internet services!)

ISP/Media outlets, are now in a much more favorable position to take over all (profitable) content services. You can bet your ass, they are willing to pay themselves top dollar for fast access. This will drive the cost up for other content providers (as there is no law now stopping them doing this) and essentially price competition out of the market.

I'm sorry, ER, but you really have no idea what you are talking about. Internet doesn't work like electricity, like so many people believe!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

silkstone said:


> They were not more than willing to pay, they fought against it tooth and nail. After the deal, they increased subscription charges.
> 
> The big deal is that now the ISPs are being paid twice for the same service. Once by you, then a second time by content providers. The content providers are more than willing to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance that comes with increased bandwidth requirements, but ISPs want them to pay for access to their customer base. (while their customer base already pays for access to internet services!)
> 
> ...


Dude the government made the law. You sound like you are questioning the government. You act as if they are corrupt. If you start talking about state sovereignty Ill have to call the FBI.  Have you filled out your facebook profile yet? You should.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 15, 2014)

silkstone said:


> They were not more than willing to pay, they fought against it tooth and nail. After the deal, they increased subscription charges.
> 
> The big deal is that now the ISPs are being paid twice for the same service. Once by you, then a second time by content providers. The content providers are more than willing to pay for the infrastructure and maintenance that comes with increased bandwidth requirements, but ISPs want them to pay for access to their customer base. (while their customer base already pays for access to internet services!)



Why shouldn't ISPs charge for access to their customers?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Why shouldn't ISPs charge for access to their customers?


We should only have enough bandwidth depending on our need. And those with more bandwidth should have it distributed by the government.


----------



## Sasqui (May 15, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> All of those things have happened because local governments grant monopolies and duopolies to ISPs.



Therein lies a big part of the problem.

I'm absolutely pissed about this.  Technically, an ISP could throttle Netflix, Youtube, etc. if it proved to be competition to the content the ISP has you pay them for.  It's wrong.


----------



## silkstone (May 15, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Why shouldn't ISPs charge for access to their customers?



Because customers pay ISPs for access to content! It's not like there is a great choice of ISPs out there that if you don't like one, you can choose between a dozen others.

If a content provider doesn;t pay, then you have no access and no recourse. Unless you live in an area with GFiber or competition.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

silkstone said:


> Because customers pay ISPs for access to content! It's not like there is a great choice of ISPs out there that if you don't like one, you can choose between a dozen others.
> 
> If a content provider doesn;t pay, then you have no access and no recourse. Unless you live in an area with GFiber or competition.


But the government made it this way.....are you questioning their motives?


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 15, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> We should only have enough bandwidth depending on our need. And those with more bandwidth should have it distributed by the government.



My, my.   I didn't know that the United States and cable providers can dictate how little bandwidth I am allowed to use, once I paid for it at an agreed price [even though its unlimited bandwidth at a set speed].

MM you're an awesome troll. I'm not angry  at you - just like your style.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> My, my.   I didn't know that the United States and cable providers can dictate how little bandwidth I am allowed to use, once I paid for it at an agreed price [even though its unlimited bandwidth at a set speed].


Of course. Why shouldn't the US government regulate what you use and when you use it? You are just paying for the opportunity to use it. Now if you cannot afford it everyone who can should pay more so you can have the same speed as them. That's completely fair and how it should be. Net Equality.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 15, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> Therein lies a big part of the problem.
> 
> I'm absolutely pissed about this.  Technically, an ISP could throttle Netflix, Youtube, etc. if it proved to be competition to the content the ISP has you pay them for.  It's wrong.



Technically yes it can if the proposal stays like this or gets watered down further.


----------



## silkstone (May 15, 2014)

I know you are being sarcastic MM. The head of the FCC was a lobbyist for the industry. Not exactly neutral.

This is mainly to ER.

Think of it like this. You are a startup, and want to provide a competing service to something that the content providers already provide. You have an idea to make it different, you start your service. People like it, start using it. But, wait. Now so many people are using it, you are using more bandwidth. and the cable companies cap YOU, not the people using the bandwidth mind you. You figure that you can upgrade the infrastructure to handle any additional load, but you do not have enough cash to provide a line into everyone's house! But, the content providers don't want you to upgrade their infrastructure. They want you to pay the going rate that they charge the competing (shell) company.

The price is $1 per 100 gb, which is enough for the (shell) company to make ends meet, but not really turn a profit. Thus, you can not turn a profit either. Needless to say, a 3rd party content provider has to try and make money, while a shell company doesn;t really have to worry about it when operating under the umbrella of big daddy.

It wouldn't be an issue, if ISPs weren;t natural monopolies/duopolies. But with no competition, there is nothing to stop them pricing competition out of the market. You liberals think that State monopolies are bad, you're about to find out how bad corporate ones can be.

At the end of the day, I'm not in the US, so it doesn't affect me. I'm happy paying $10 a month for an 8mb connection with the option of going up to 30 mb fiber for $30 a month. Hell, it may even be a good thing, the content providers will be forced to start looking for overseas customers. I can already enjoy baseball and football for $50 and $100 a season respectively streamed in full HD, I'm just waiting for netflix to come over here.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 15, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You're crazy a massive centralized government setting blanket rules and regulation is the only way to go. Only people who believe a government can be corrupted want less regulation. Sounds to me like terrorist talk. Only terrorist want less government and regulation.


The 1st amendment isn't enforced by Congress, it is enforced by the Supreme Court. In fact, the 1st amendment is very clear Congress can't touch the 1st amendment.  The same thing should be applied to all infrastructure (including internet).  If a business violates your rights, you have the force of rights to go against them.  It's far more powerful than Congress/Executive because it sets precedent that lasts centuries.  It also doesn't require a large, ineffective government.



Easy Rhino said:


> I think that is a moot point. Comcast was charging for a fast lane before they bought NBC.


That wasn't my point.  It's a conflict of interest that should have never been permitted to occur.



Easy Rhino said:


> It doesn't matter if Netflix had a choice. Netflix is a business that uses bandwidth. They pay for better access as they should.


All businesses with an internet connection uses bandwidth.  Netflix is paying for the cost of their service without paying Comcast like all businesses with an internet connection.    Netflix appears to be hosted by XO Communications and I guarantee you they are paying a boat load of cash to XO for all the bandwidth they use.  Comcast isn't Netflix's ISP as far as I can tell so they should have no grounds for charging Netflix for a service their own customers are paying for.  This is why what Comcast, and now Verizon, is doing is fundamentally wrong and should be criminal.  It's blackmail/extortion and the FCC just made it legal.



Easy Rhino said:


> Comcast is very aggressive. Nothing wrong with an aggressive company so long as they play by the rules and they did.


By spending $18 million last year to bend the rules in their favor.  The game is rigged.  The house always wins.




Easy Rhino said:


> Net Neutrality means a higher Internet bill for everyone then and much slower access to services like Netflix.


What did I say that gives you that impression?  Net neutrality was implicit until Comcast came along.  My ISP (Frontier Communications) even though they aren't investing in upgrading the infrastructure, is neutral.  They've never stopped me from doing anything.




Easy Rhino said:


> If the FCC reclassifiies the internet then you will see Comcast grow even larger as it owns the infrastructure and will be severely limited by government forces on what it can charge. So you can kiss innovation goodbye.


ISPs aren't innovating just like electric companies aren't innovating.  Other companies innovate and sell the innovations to utility providers (e.g. Cisco making better routers or GE making more efficient AC generators).  The government incentivized getting everyone connected to telecommunication services decades ago but, so far, there has been no incentive to improve telecommunication services.  Until that incentive exists, US telecommunications will continue to stagnant or grow at a non-competitive rate.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

silkstone said:


> I know you are being sarcastic MM. The head of the FCC was a lobbyist for the industry. Not exactly neutral.
> 
> This is mainly to ER.
> 
> ...


Are you saying that lobbyist control the government and the Great United States Government is corrupted! That would mean things like the Affordable Health Care Act and all the regulations passed in the last 60 plus years have been for profit! HOW DARE YOU SIR! Terrorist talk you speak!



FordGT90Concept said:


> The 1st amendment isn't enforced by Congress, it is enforced by the Supreme Court. In fact, the 1st amendment is very clear Congress can't touch the 1st amendment.  The same thing should be applied to all infrastructure (including internet).  If a business violates your rights, you have the force of rights to go against them.  It's far more powerful than Congress/Executive because it sets precedent that lasts centuries.  It also doesn't require a large, ineffective government.


 Oh please "Amendments" have been more of "suggestions" since the civil war.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 15, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh please "Amendments" have been more of "suggestions" since the civil war.


Indeed but look at the Heller decision.  SCOTUS can restore the amendments relatively easily.


----------



## silkstone (May 15, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Are you saying that lobbyist control the government and the Great United States Government is corrupted! That would mean things like the Affordable Health Care Act and all the regulations passed in the last 60 plus years have been for profit! HOW DARE YOU SIR! Terrorist talk you speak!
> 
> Oh please "Amendments" have been more of "suggestions" since the civil war.



Always such a pessimist MM. Straw-man arguments are easy. I agree with Obamacare but, that is a different debate 



FordGT90Concept said:


> ISPs aren't innovating just like electric companies aren't innovating.  Other companies innovate and sell the innovations to utility providers (e.g. Cisco making better routers or GE making more efficient AC generators).  The government incentivized getting everyone connected to telecommunication services decades ago but, so far, there has been no incentive to improve telecommunication services.  Until that incentive exists, US telecommunications will continue to stagnant or grow at a non-competitive rate.



Even when they do receive incentives, they do not follow through. Which state was it where comcast received a huge cash payout to connect every district to BB. They did about 50% and then said, nah! It's too expensive, the rest of them have access to our mobile network, that's good enough.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

silkstone said:


> Always such a pessimist MM. Straw-man arguments are easy. I agree with Obamacare but, that is a different debate


If you trust the government to regulate your health care but don't trust them to regulate your internet I would say you have mixed priorities to say the least.

Game, set, match.

NOW I'm done with this thread. Just wanted to rub some salt.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 15, 2014)

The Cable Companies are running scared of Title II, take a look:


----------



## silkstone (May 15, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If you trust the government to regulate your health care but don't trust them to regulate your internet I would say you have mixed priorities to say the least.
> 
> Game, set, match.
> 
> NOW I'm done with this thread. Just wanted to rub some salt.



Haha! Stop trying to bait me into a ban 
I think the whole point of this is that the government AREN'T regulating ISPs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 15, 2014)

silkstone said:


> Even when they do receive incentives, they do not follow through. Which state was it where comcast received a huge cash payout to connect every district to BB. They did about 50% and then said, nah! It's too expensive, the rest of them have access to our mobile network, that's good enough.


Which is why we need a consumer bill of rights.  They would have finished it because if they didn't, they'd get a massive class-action lawsuit that would have put them out of business.


----------



## silkstone (May 15, 2014)

In the 50's to 70's the government used to be 'us,' it's a sad day to see democratic citizens viewing their governments as a 'them'


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 15, 2014)

So for example:

I 'm home drinking Mt. Dew and downloading the NVidia drivers linked from TPU .

I go into the bathroom, but I am throttled back:






Who's the blonde guy?  The cable company?  The FCC?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 15, 2014)

silkstone said:


> In the 50's to 70's the government used to be 'us,' it's a sad day to see democratic citizens viewing their governments as a 'them'


In the south its been "Them" a lot longer than the 50's. But yeah I fully agree with you. Its sad to know you are a serf to a ruling class of jerk offs.


----------



## Arjai (May 16, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You're crazy a massive centralized government setting blanket rules and regulation is the only way to go. Only people who believe a government can be corrupted want less regulation. Sounds to me like terrorist talk. Only terrorist want less government and regulation.


LOL.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ISPs aren't innovating just like electric companies aren't innovating.  Other companies innovate and sell the innovations to utility providers (e.g. Cisco making better routers or GE making more efficient AC generators).  The government incentivized getting everyone connected to telecommunication services decades ago but, so far, there has been no incentive to improve telecommunication services.  Until that incentive exists, US telecommunications will continue to stagnant or grow at a non-competitive rate.



I missed a lot last night so I am just going to focus on this as it gets the to crux of the argument made by people who say they want a neutral internet.

1) The government created this problem by giving tax dollars to an industry. When this happens corruption always ensues. (I am looking at you Green Energy.)

2) Innovation has happened very rapidly over the past 20 years. I don't know how anyone can make the argument telecomms don't innovate. Sure, as the market place has seen less competition innovation in terms of bandwidth offered to residences has not greatly increased in some markets (not mine) but that is due to local government grant monoplies. That is a last mile problem not a net neutrality problem.

3) Companies like Netflix exist because companies like Comcast exist. If Comcast sees Netflix as a competitor than it is in Comcast's best interest to play hardball.

4) No one has a right to Internet access so all arguments claiming lack of innovation and monoplization are moot.

5) Finally I leave you with this. http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/15/is-the-internet-a-public-utility


----------



## silkstone (May 16, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> No one has a right to Internet access so all arguments claiming lack of innovation and monoplization are moot.



It should be treated the same way as electricity, water and telephone (as a utility).

Imagine what would happen if any of the above mentioned were given the same amount of freedom as ISPs are.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> 1) The government created this problem by giving tax dollars to an industry. When this happens corruption always ensues. (I am looking at you Green Energy.)


I agree.  Incentivize doesn't necessarily mean monetarily and it definitely doesn't mean government cutting a check to private companies.  It means things like a temporary tax break for getting households that have a <5 Mbps connection a connection speed >=100 Mbps that only applies if more than 50% of house holds that were connected sign up for the plan.  This forces a huge infrastructure investment in an area that is presently forgotten about and the last part makes sure the price is competitive.  It doesn't promote corruption because the government isn't picking favorites and isn't signing checks but it still achieves the goal of a better infrastructure at equal or reduced prices.



Easy Rhino said:


> 2) Innovation has happened very rapidly over the past 20 years. I don't know how anyone can make the argument telecomms don't innovate. Sure, as the market place has seen less competition innovation in terms of bandwidth offered to residences has not greatly increased in some markets (not mine) but that is due to local government grant monoplies. That is a last mile problem not a net neutrality problem.


Again, the innovations are not coming from the telcomms, it is coming from equipment manufacturers like Cisco, Siemens, and other enterprise network manufacturers.  It also comes from places like Harvard and MIT where they frequently explore new ideas.  Telcomms buy these innovations and implement them to sell a service.



Easy Rhino said:


> 3) Companies like Netflix exist because companies like Comcast exist. If Comcast sees Netflix as a competitor than it is in Comcast's best interest to play hardball.


Companies like UPS, FedEx, and virtually all the rest exist because the roads exist.  The roads don't discriminate who is driving on them so why should the internet?  Comcast's interests should only be that it's consumers are satisfied with the service.  What, specifically, the consumers do with that service is none of Comcast's damn business.  The fact they're even looking is a violation of privacy.



Easy Rhino said:


> 4) No one has a right to Internet access so all arguments claiming lack of innovation and monoplization are moot.


The internet is becoming (already become?) more important the US Postal Service which, by the way, is in the Constitution as a service provided by the government to be used by all.  I think the argument can easily be made that access to the internet should be made a right to the US Postal Service can move into the 21st century.



Easy Rhino said:


> 5) Finally I leave you with this. http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/15/is-the-internet-a-public-utility


"A group of large ISPs wrote to the FCC this week to warn that, if the agency moves forward with reclassification, they would spend  less money to build out their networks."

They already only "build out their networks" for the highest paying customers.  The demand for data isn't going to change if net neutrality was enforced.  It will simply put an emphasis on people that have garbage internet to be able to even access the services provided by those highest paying customers.  Is it right for cities to be getting internet upgrades repeatedly while the rest of the country is stuck on <10 mbps connections?  Is it also right that to get non-pathetic uploads that you have to be a business customer and pay bookoo bucks?  Consumers aren't the priority, big money is.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I agree.  Incentivize doesn't necessarily mean monetarily and it definitely doesn't mean government cutting a check to private companies.  It means things like a temporary tax break for getting households that have a <5 Mbps connection a connection speed >=100 Mbps that only applies if more than 50% of house holds that were connected sign up for the plan.  This forces a huge infrastructure investment in an area that is presently forgotten about and the last part makes sure the price is competitive.  It doesn't promote corruption because the government isn't picking favorites and isn't signing checks but it still achieves the goal of a better infrastructure at equal or reduced prices.



They have similiar rules for gas lines here in PA. Guess what? They don't change anything because the gas company which is a utility does not see long term profit. Expanding to remote areas is too big of a risk for gas companies.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Again, the innovations are not coming from the telcomms, it is coming from equipment manufacturers like Cisco, Siemens, and other enterprise network manufacturers.  It also comes from places like Harvard and MIT where they frequently explore new ideas.  Telcomms buy these innovations and implement them to sell a service.



That's my point. Telecoms are buying those innovations and implementing them.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Companies like UPS, FedEx, and virtually all the rest exist because the roads exist.  The roads don't discriminate who is driving on them so why should the internet?  Comcast's interests should only be that it's consumers are satisfied with the service.  What, specifically, the consumers do with that service is none of Comcast's damn business.  The fact they're even looking is a violation of privacy.



Roads do discriminate through taxation. There is a gasoline tax to charge larger vehicles more for road maintaince. Toll roads are the same way. And police monitor roads very closely to watch for unsafe drivers and to remove accidents (bottlenecks) from roads.




FordGT90Concept said:


> The internet is becoming (already become?) more important the US Postal Service which, by the way, is in the Constitution as a service provided by the government to be used by all.  I think the argument can easily be made that access to the internet should be made a right to the US Postal Service can move into the 21st century.



Well I agree the internet is more important than USPS but you are talking to someone who thinks the USPS time has long since past. It is broke and cannot compete with private companies. The only way USPS makes any sort of income is because they now are used heavily in the last mile for FedEX,UPS,etc. That is actually a perfect example of how eliminating government granted monopolies and dupolies on ISPs at the local level and replacing them with metro fibre where the taxpayer owns the last mile would work much better than our current situation.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Is it right for cities to be getting internet upgrades repeatedly while the rest of the country is stuck on <10 mbps connections?  Is it also right that to get non-pathetic uploads that you have to be a business customer and pay bookoo bucks?  Consumers aren't the priority, big money is.



This last statement is confusing. You are demanding a service at the price you are willing to pay. That is fine but you can't then force the ISP to meet your demand. If you offered $50,000 for an AUDI R8 and the dealership laughed at you, would you then claim a right to that vehicle at that price simple because someone else can afford to pay the actual asking price?


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 16, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> I missed a lot last night so I am just going to focus on this as it gets the to crux of the argument made by people who say they want a neutral internet.
> 
> 
> 4) No one has a right to Internet access so all arguments claiming lack of innovation and monoplization are moot.
> ...



4.  Shouldn't it be a right today in the US?  Some companies that do business with their customers don't make phone calls or even send mail, but provide contact via email only.

5.  That article was not worth reading, it has no information.  See one of my post  above linking the actual cable industry letter to the fcc.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> They have similiar rules for gas lines here in PA. Guess what? They don't change anything because the gas company which is a utility does not see long term profit. Expanding to remote areas is too big of a risk for gas companies.


I guess the only option is to socialize it like roads and water then.



Easy Rhino said:


> Roads do discriminate through taxation. There is a gasoline tax to charge larger vehicles more for road maintaince. Toll roads are the same way. And police monitor roads very closely to watch for unsafe drivers and to remove accidents (bottlenecks) from roads.


The fuel tax is very, very low ($0.009 per gallon) and no one really complains about it because good roads means less vehicle maintenance.   It is fair for everyone.

Toll roads are private roads.

Law enforcement make sure the roads aren't abused because it is in the public interest to keep them safe.  The FCC should be playing the role of law enforcement on the internet, not corporations.  The way it is now on the internet would be like corporations policing public roads.  That's fundamentally wrong because the internet is infrastructure.  Without it, large portions of the infrastructure and government would fail to work.  Case in point: power plants use the internet to communicate with each other about power demand.  The internet is also used by the State Department to communicate with embassies around the world.



Easy Rhino said:


> That is actually a perfect example of how eliminating government granted monopolies and dupolies on ISPs at the local level and replacing them with metro fibre where the taxpayer owns the last mile would work much better than our current situation.


I agree with that in general but what about rural customers?



Easy Rhino said:


> This last statement is confusing. You are demanding a service at the price you are willing to pay. That is fine but you can't then force the ISP to meet your demand. If you offered $50,000 for an AUDI R8 and the dealership laughed at you, would you then claim a right to that vehicle at that price simple because someone else can afford to pay the actual asking price?


Frontier Communications owns my telephone line and that line is decades old.  They have no intention to upgrade it anytime soon, if ever.  The only shot I have at getting better internet is the ISP in town laying a trunk line that goes past my house en route to another town.  If I want to connect to that, it will cost me north of $6000 out of pocket.  The internet is a case study in have and have-nots.  Either you live in a densely populated area where ISPs improve the network or you do not.  The country can't move into the 21st century when a massive chunk of the population has no options for better internet service.   Something needs to be done to rectify that problem and I don't really care what.  Personally, I'm in favor of creating a USPS-like organization that owns all internet infrastructure in the USA with a mandate that says they need to upgrade the internet for the slowest customers first.  There's no reason, what-so-ever, why everyone in the USA can't have a gigabit fiber connection.  No one simply wants to commit to making it happen.  It would allow 9-1-1 to be moved to VoIP, phasing out the old dial tone phone system, moving all government communications with citizens to secure email accounts, doing away with the USPS, and laying the framework for electronic voting--you know, things that are inevitable but USA isn't doing.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> 4.  Shouldn't it be a right today in the US?  Some companies that do business with their customers don't make phone calls or even send mail, but provide contact via email only.
> 
> 5.  That article was not worth reading, it has no information.  See one of my post  above linking the actual cable industry letter to the fcc.



Do you know what a right is? I'm not being belligerent I'm asking a serious question. You in no way shape or form have a right to internet, phone or even health care.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

US Constitution said:
			
		

> The Congress shall have Power To...





			
				US Constitution said:
			
		

> To establish Post Offices and post Roads;


In the 21st century:
"Post Offices" = network routers
"Roads" = network cables

The point of that clause is to ensure the government has a means to communicate.  How do most people communicate today?  Cell phones and internet.

The constitutional basis for socializing the internet are certainly there.  A "right" no, not really.  It is a service available to all that discriminates against no one and is subsidized by the government so it is affordable to all.

I would argue that it should be made a right on top of the constitutional grounds because it overlaps so much with other rights already enumerated in the Constitution.  Most people today get their news from the internet (freedom of the press), religious bulletins are delivered via the internet (freedom of religion), the internet itself is speech (freedom of speech), legal correspondence is performed through the internet (freedom of redress), and there's blantant violations of the fourth amendment committed via the internet.  The 10th amendment explicitly says things not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states.  In order for the FCC to touch the internet, they had to do it under the guise of "commerce clause" (the same bit of language that saved Obamacare from getting shanked).  Billions of dollars worth of transactions flow through the internet every day in the form of credit card transactions, stock exchanges, and the purchase of digital goods and services.  It is many more times more instrumental to the economy than healthcare ever was so I believe it was justified in being under the federal umbrella.

Anyway, I'm rambling.  My point is that the arguments for socializing the internet are very easy to make.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I guess the only option is to socialize it like roads and water then.
> 
> 
> The fuel tax is very, very low ($0.009 per gallon) and no one really complains about it because good roads means less vehicle maintenance.   It is fair for everyone.
> ...



I do not believe that the role of government of a free society is to monitor ISPs. Nor do I believe it is the role over government of a free society to dictate bandwidth and peering contracts between consenting parties. If individual states want to create and own ISPs as public utilites then so be it but every state where utilies have been strictly controlled by the state innovation is lacking and service is at a bare minimum. If you want faster internet then petition your local government to open up the utility poles and ease the restrictions on digging up the roadways.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 16, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Do you know what a right is? I'm not being belligerent I'm asking a serious question. You in no way shape or form have a right to internet, phone or even health care.



I believe human rights in the United States include freedom of speech?

In order to exercise my freedom of speech right as a citizen, internet/broadband access should be a the "right."  Healthcare too, but that's another topic

Hell, other countries recognize internet access as a right rightfully so and some countries deny and restrict that right.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 16, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> I do not believe that the role of government of a free society is to monitor ISPs. Nor do I believe it is the role over government of a free society to dictate bandwidth and peering contracts between consenting parties. If individual states want to create and own ISPs as public utilites then so be it but every state where utilies have been strictly controlled by the state innovation is lacking and service is at a bare minimum. If you want faster internet then petition your local government to open up the utility poles and ease the restrictions on digging up the roadways.



At the end of the day who should be the watchdog for the public making sure they get what they paid for?  The government>? The ISPs? Neither has the best qualifications, but I'd rather take the former than the latter in this case.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> I do not believe that the role of government of a free society is to monitor ISPs. Nor do I believe it is the role over government of a free society to dictate bandwidth and peering contracts between consenting parties. If individual states want to create and own ISPs as public utilites then so be it but every state where utilies have been strictly controlled by the state innovation is lacking and service is at a bare minimum. If you want faster internet then petition your local government to open up the utility poles and ease the restrictions on digging up the roadways.


Because the internet in its entirety constitutes of speech and press, ISPs should not be able to monitor internet traffic beyond the routing data.  Prioritizing traffic can easily be interpreted as a violation of speech/press and thus, should not be allowed.  If this were the case, the only course of action ISPs could take is to improve throughput rather than restricting free speech.  These FCC rules promote the voice of interests with deep pockets (like corporations) and demote the voice of individuals--the exact opposite of the intent of the internet.

It is the role of a free society to dictate minimum requirements for an internet connection just as it is to establish a minimum wage.

The US military is strictly controlled by the government and it is not lacking innovation nor is it "bare minimum" by any means.  Why?  Because they buy innovation from defense contractors that are, by their very nature, compelled to innovate.  I've explained this no less than three times now.

I've spoke to my town and they have no intention to leave city limits.  The only other thing to petition is the county which happens to have its seat in the same town.  They care even less because they have enough problems just maintaining all the county roads.  State?  Ha, fat chance.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

Easy Rhino don't bother. They are already mixing up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights......ALREADY. They have no clue what a fundamental right is.

Ford you have a right to speak freely. But you do not have a right to a bullhorn. Know the difference.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> At the end of the day who should be the watchdog for the public making sure they get what they paid for?  The government>? The ISPs? Neither has the best qualifications, but I'd rather take the former than the latter in this case.


Government doesn't give a shit.  ISPs were given free-reign by government.  No one is watching out for public interest right now except organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  Their capability to have an impact is extremely limited.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Ford you have a right to speak freely. But you do not have a right to a bullhorn. Know the difference.


28.3% of US households don't even have a voice on the internet.  Virtually all of them are elderly (45.5% have internet), poor (49.8% have internet), and/or uneducated (31.5% have internet).  As the USA moves more and more towards internet, these demographics are going to become further isolated from the rest of the country: haves and have-nots.

You have to buy the bullhorn.  The point is, if you bought it, ISPs cannot be allowed to deny you from using it.  Monthly caps are a prime example of this.  Caps are also-known-as "we're not going to upgrade the infrastructure because that costs money and we'd rather pay dividends to shareholders."  There's no caps on your power/gas consumption, is there?  The only places where there is a cap on water usage is in drought areas and those caps serve the common interest.  The internet is designed in a way to use as little data as possible.  If people pay for a fat pipe, they should be able to fill it.  If the infrastructure can't handle it they either need to upgrade it (good for everyone) or they need to stop falsely advertising higher bandwidth than they can really deliver (also good).  Example: the ISP in town offers 1.5 mbps all the way up to 100 mbps plans.  If you look at the fine print *all* plans have a 250 GB/month limit.  People paying bookoo bucks are already subsidizing the people paying a pittance and they're all being cheated out of the connection they paid for (1.5 mbps comes to 486 GB/month and 100 mbps comes to 32.4 TB/month).  Since they apparently can only handle 771.6 Kb/s, they should be advertising 771.6 Kb/s.  That's another thing the FCC could easily do with net neutrality rules that would improve the marketplace (and kick deceptive companies like Comcast to the curb).


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 16, 2014)

Damn, first net neutrality and now this? I thought the FCC was supposed to regulate big communication corporations so they wouldn't abuse the costumers, but seems like it's the other way around, a lot has been lost in the last year


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Government doesn't give a shit.  ISPs were given free-reign by government.  No one is watching out for public interest right now except organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  Their capability to have an impact is extremely limited.
> 
> 
> 28.3% of US households don't even have a voice on the internet.  Virtually all of them are elderly (45.5% have internet), poor (49.8% have internet), and/or uneducated (31.5% have internet).  As the USA moves more and more towards internet, these demographics are going to become further isolated from the rest of the country: haves and have-nots.


How many without phones? How many without cars? Should the government provide everyone with a car also? Public transportation doesn't work for everyone. I haven't seen a bus in my area in 3 years. I live to far out in the country. If I have a right to travel openly then I should have a right to a car too with government provided gas by your logic. Where is my government provided car and why does the post office have charge for stamps? Shouldn't it be free since mail is part of freedom of speech according to you? Why am I paying postage? I have a RIGHT to communicate and speak freely!

Do you know the difference yet or should I keep going?


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because the internet in its entirety constitutes of speech and press, ISPs should not be able to monitor internet traffic beyond the routing data.  Prioritizing traffic can easily be interpreted as a violation of speech/press and thus, should not be allowed.  If this were the case, the only course of action ISPs could take is to improve throughput rather than restricting free speech.  These FCC rules promote the voice of interests with deep pockets (like corporations) and demote the voice of individuals--the exact opposite of the intent of the internet.
> 
> It is the role of a free society to dictate minimum requirements for an internet connection just as it is to establish a minimum wage.
> 
> ...



You use the word free in the same breath as dictate. I am sorry but I think we are at an impasse. I understand your position but I do not agree with it because of what I have seen government beaurocracy do to industry. And just a note, I am no friend of Comcast.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How many without phones?


http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
http://business.time.com/2012/02/08/how-to-get-the-government-to-cover-your-cell-phone-bills/
http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/states



TheMailMan78 said:


> How many without cars? Should the government provide everyone with a car also?  Public transportation doesn't work for everyone.


See mass transit + public transport.  Even if it doesn't work, it is still available.  It is up to those disadvantage people to make it work for them.  Also, the USA is a country of cars.  Reasonable used cars can be had for a few hundred dollars.



TheMailMan78 said:


> If I have a right to travel openly then I should have a right to a car too with government provided gas by your logic.


As I said before, the government provides the roads.  It is up to you whether or not to use them.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Where is my government provided car and why does the post office have charge for stamps? Shouldn't it be free since mail is part of freedom of speech according to you? Why am I paying postage? I have a RIGHT to communicate and speak freely!


Because people that use the service should pay the lionshare for it.  I have no problem with paying for a connection to the internet but I do have a problem with not getting what I paid out of it by being throttled, capped, firewalled, sniffed, etc.  Think of it like a minimum wage.  If you want internet access, the government should be obligated to provide that connection to you for a low, fixed rate (example: Google Fiber is free except for upfront equipment costs for a low speed connection).  This allows you to function in the 21st century which is good for society as a whole.  If you're an internet power user, you'll pay for more.  If you are a business like Netflix, you'll pay a ridiculous amount but everyone should know they are getting what they paid for and no one is getting short changed because some corporation decided shareholders were more important than consumers.




Easy Rhino said:


> You use the word free in the same breath as dictate. I am sorry but I think we are at an impasse. I understand your position but I do not agree with it because of what I have seen government beaurocracy do to industry. And just a note, I am no friend of Comcast.


I likely despise bureaucracy more than you do but we have seen the public solution to this problem and it is abysmal.  We need an alternative.  The TVA model may work where government foots the bill for initial implementation and once the original investment cost has elapsed, a private business model can be put in place to take it out of the government's hands.  Then again, this is what happened to the USPS and it has run into the ground ever since.  It's also what has been done with defense with hiring what are effectively mercenaries.  Let's also not forget the NSA debacle. There is no ideal solution.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

I


FordGT90Concept said:


> http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
> http://business.time.com/2012/02/08/how-to-get-the-government-to-cover-your-cell-phone-bills/
> http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/states
> 
> ...


A right means you do not have to pay for it. If you do then its not a right. Everything you said requires money out of someone's pocket. What you are basically condoning is slavery. Someone pays for someone who doesn't. Also public transportation isn't available everywhere. Also going by your logic the government provides roads but as YOU JUST SAID "its up to you It is up to you whether or not to use them.". Well guess what? They provide subsidies for the cable companies for the phone lines and fiber optics. Its up to you It is up to you whether or not to use them. Just likes its up to me to find a cheap used car for a couple hundred bucks to drive on public roads. Seriously you need to read up what a RIGHT is.

Also I pay for high quality roads. I shouldn't be limited on how fast I should drive on them. If they can limit the speed of my car they can limit the speed of your internet.

ANNNNNND BOMB GOES THE DYNAMITE!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

A constitutional right means the government can't take steps to deny you something.  Marriage licenses aren't free but there is a constitutional right to disallow the government from denying them to homosexual/interacial/etc. couples.  The price paid is irrelevant, so long at is fair (read: does not discriminate).  Another example is freedom of the press.  Running a press was never free so there was always implicit costs.  The intent of the freedom is to prevent the government from censoring media from spreading a message over a large demographic.


Remember, the federal government granted exclusivity rights in order to get the entire country connected to phone services.  This is why 56K is an option to most people.  This basically sums up everything else I have to say on that subject:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cable-Angry-About-Higher-6-Mbps-FCC-Broadband-Definition-123746


Speed limits are public interest.  They were initially introduced to conserve fuel.  Today it serves the purpose of reducing fatalities in car crashes.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A constitutional right means the government can't take steps to deny you something.  Marriage licenses aren't free but there is a constitutional right to disallow the government from denying them to homosexual/interacial/etc. couples.  The price paid is irrelevant, so long at is fair (read: does not discriminate).  Another example is freedom of the press.  Running a press was never free so there was always implicit costs.  The intent of the freedom is to prevent the government from censoring media from spreading a message over a large demographic.


And no one is denying you internet access.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

Considering almost 30% don't have internet access, I'd disagree.  That doesn't even brush on the crux of my argument that slow and/or capped internet (which this FCC policy encourages more of) is holding the economy back.  Let's also not forget that US internet bills are more than double most other countries so we pay more for an inferior service.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Considering almost 30% don't have internet access, I'd disagree.  That doesn't even brush on the crux of my argument that slow and/or capped internet (which this FCC policy encourages more of) is holding the economy back.  Let's also not forget that US internet bills are more than double most other countries.


So people don't have cars either or access to public transportation. BUT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL FREELY. Again I don't think you know what a right is.

You have a RIGHT to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided to you by the state. ( I know this for a fact.)

You do not have a RIGHT to the internet. If you cannot afford a computer then to damn bad. If you can afford a computer then you have a RIGHT to connect to a state accessed network and on this network you have a RIGHT to speak freely on a state owed forum. However TPU is not public. A mod can come in here, edit your posts and change your name to Jonny McPoopie Pants and guess what.....NO RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. ISP's can regulate your ass all they want. Just like a Phone company can block you from using its service if you don't pay your phone bill.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

If you're a prisoner you don't.  Try to go to Groome Lake without leaving in a body bag too.  People don't have a right to travel freely.

The internet encompasses no less than three rights (speech, press,  and assembly) in the Constitution and is analogous to a government responsibility given in Article I, Section 8.  The internet also supersedes some of the economic justifications for the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 by transferring goods and services digitally.  They aren't comparable.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If you're a prisoner you don't.  Try to go to Groome Lake without leaving in a body bag too.  People don't have a right to travel freely.
> 
> The internet encompasses no less than three rights (speech, press,  and assembly) in the Constitution and is analogous to a government responsibility given in Article I, Section 8.  The internet also supersedes some of the economic justifications for the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 by transferring goods and services digitally.  They aren't comparable.


When you are a prisoner you loose your rights. You can go to Groome Lake but their is such thing as property rights. Remember those? You do not have a right to trespass but, you can use public roads. Would you like to keep trying?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> A mod can come in here, edit your posts and change your name to Jonny McPoopie Pants and guess what.....NO RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.


Maybe not but they'd open themselves up to a public defamation lawsuit all the same.



TheMailMan78 said:


> ISP's can regulate your ass all they want. Just like a Phone company can block you from using its service if you don't pay your phone bill.


ISPs do not have the power to regulate.  That's the role of government.  If the FCC did its job and established sound net neutrality rules enforcing the rights enumerated in the constitution, this would be a non-issue but, no, the FCC is not inclined to do such a thing.



TheMailMan78 said:


> When you are a prisoner you loose your rights. You can go to Groome Lake but their is such thing as property rights. Remember those? You do not have a right to trespass but, you can use public roads. Would you like to keep trying?


Since you like talking about roads, let me point out a fact why the internet and roads are treated so differently: the internet is profitable and roads are not.  There are multi-billion dollar corporate interests in the internet; the same cannot be said of roads.


----------



## OneMoar (May 16, 2014)

can't say I didn't expect this outcome
at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what they isp's do or don't do the smarter people will find ways around it. as they say the more you tighten you grip the more you lose

 I prefer the government stay the fuck out of it they screw everything up worse every-time they try and fix something case and point here


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Maybe not but they'd open themselves up to a public defamation lawsuit all the same.


 You agreed to the rules before you signed up. Good luck with your suit.




FordGT90Concept said:


> ISPs do not have the power to regulate.  That's the role of government.  If the FCC did its job and established sound net neutrality rules enforcing the rights enumerated in the constitution, this would be a non-issue but, no, the FCC is not inclined to do such a thing..


 That's the problem with your argument. ISP's are not owned by the government. Regulation is just a fancy way to circumvent a democratic vote. FCC has far to much power as it is. As long as the ISP doesn't deny the use of their services based off Color, Religion or Gender. The FCC can go screw itself. Instead we have another corrupt government system that takes bribes. Your solution? Give them more power. How about we open up the market and let free market regulate itself. GASP! THE CONCEPT!




FordGT90Concept said:


> Since you like talking about roads, let me point out a fact why the internet and roads are treated so differently: the internet is profitable and roads are not.  There are multi-billion dollar corporate interests in the internet; the same cannot be said of roads.


 Road construction isn't profitable? You are kidding right?


----------



## OneMoar (May 16, 2014)

I can't believe I am saying this mailman is right
sure lets give the government that's been exposed and spying on its own people without just cause full-unrestricted access to the primary communication method in the country
where you living under a rock during the snowden fiasco ?  seriously WTH
and the analogy of roads and mailboxes and tubes ect ect is no longer valid get with the program
the government is just as "evil" and greedy as the ISP's if this wasn't the case then this whole discussion would have never happened


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> That's the problem with your argument. ISP's are not owned by the government. Regulation is just a fancy way to circumvent a democratic vote. FCC has far to much power as it is. As long as the ISP doesn't deny the use of their services based off Color, Religion or Gender. The FCC can go screw itself. Instead we have another corrupt government system that takes bribes. Your solution? Give them more power. How about we open up the market and let free market regulate itself. GASP! THE CONCEPT!


Elected officials create regulations that are supposed to be in the public interest.  You know, things like seatbelts and building codes.

The FCC's role is to establish a competitive market and make sure consumers aren't screwed over in the process.  These rules promote "monopolies and duopolies," as Easy Rhino likes to put it.

If you looked at that link I gave you at the US Census Bureau, you'd see that Hispanics and black are 20% less likely to have internet access than whites and Asians.

I am not opposed to deregulating the internet but only on the condition that net neutrality rules are in place first so consumers don't get screwed over by corporate maneuvers.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Road construction isn't profitable? You are kidding right?


I said "roads" not "road construction."  Government contracts generally are lucrative but it is still coming from the government either way.  Toll roads can be profitable but they can't be built without government eminent domain.



OneMoar said:


> I can't believe I am saying this mailman is right
> sure lets give the government that's been exposed and spying on its own people without just cause full-unrestricted access to the primary communication method in the country
> where you living under a rock during the snowden fiasco ?  seriously WTH
> and the analogy of roads and mailboxes and tubes ect ect is no longer valid get with the program
> the government is just as "evil" and greedy as the ISP's if this wasn't the case then this whole discussion would have never happened


They're equally bad.  As I said before, "there is no ideal solution."


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Elected officials create regulations that are supposed to be in the public interest.  You know, things like seatbelts and building codes.
> 
> The FCC's role is to establish a competitive market and make sure consumers aren't screwed over in the process.  These rules promote "monopolies and duopolies," as Easy Rhino likes to put it.
> 
> ...


Who in the FCC did you vote for? I must have missed that vote.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

They are appointed by the POTUS and approved by the Senate; those 101 officials are elected.

I would not be opposed to positions like these appearing on the general election ballot.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 16, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They are appointed by the POTUS and approved by the Senate; those 101 officials are elected.
> 
> I would not be opposed to positions like these appearing on the general election ballot.


Kinda like the VA and the IRS? Who regulates the regulators? Ill give you a guess........the lobbies with the deepest pockets. Sound plan we have here for an open market. A buyable government and your solution is to give them MORE POWER. Makes sense.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 16, 2014)

Can't argue with that.  Like I said, we need something different; I'm just not sure what that is.  Even if the FCC were to create good net neutrality rules, I wouldn't trust them to do a good job implementing and enforcing them.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (May 16, 2014)

Interesting quotes:

We remain concerned that the proposed approach could legalize discrimination, harming innovation and punishing US consumers with a broadband experience that's worse than they already have. Netflix is not interested in a fast lane; we're interested in safeguarding an Open Internet.
*NETFLIX*

We supported the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet rules because they struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and reasonable network management rights for ISPs … We remain confident that the Commission will continue to appropriately balance its strong commitment to consumer protection with the need to allow network operators to manage their networks reasonably and to continue to encourage private investment in our nation’s broadband infrastructure. As strongly as we believe in the propriety of legally enforceable open Internet rules, however, we have an equally strong belief that any proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act would spark massive instability, create investor and marketplace uncertainty, derail planned investments, slow broadband adoption, and kill jobs in America.
*COMCAST*

Consumers should not be denied highest quality access to the content of their choice because of discriminatory deals cut by their broadband Internet access provider. A strong non-discrimination rule is needed.
*AMAZON*

Verizon has long been committed to an open Internet for a simple reason: Our customers demand it. This was true before the FCC ever considered putting rules in place, and serving our customers will ensure our commitment to an open Internet regardless of what the FCC does in the future ... We look forward to reviewing the FCC's proposal, and we will be constructively engaged in the months to come. But one thing is clear: For the FCC to impose 1930s utility regulation on the Internet would lead to years of legal and regulatory uncertainty and would jeopardize investment and innovation in broadband.
*VERIZON*



I hope the FCC does impose Title II of the Communications Act. 

The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created "for the purpose of the national defense" and "for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications."[3]

So do the Police, Fire, and Ambulance Services have to pay for fast lanes or will they get throttled down unnecessarily for paying standard fare?


----------



## flmatter (May 16, 2014)

^"So do the Police, Fire, and Ambulance Services have to pay for fast lanes or will they get throttled down unnecessarily for paying standard fare?"   lights, sirens and badges are their fast lane  

Just chime in caps already exist in certain places in the US, me being Alaska  I am paying for 22mbs with a 200gb cap and $0.003mb fee for mb over the cap I go. Versus when I was in Ohio I was paying for 15mbs and no caps. I am paying about the same for internet in both places about $80 a month, I like the faster speed of 22mbs but dislike the cap(especial when I have to re-image my computers, I eat a lot of bandwidth up).

The ISP's do need to upgrade their hardware and services either way, fibre instead of copper and bigger throughput hardware. I would love to have 100mbs service or 1gig service at what I am paying now.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 17, 2014)

I love how people expect the FCC to save them from monopolies when the FCC was responsible for creating them to begin with. GIVE THEM MORE POWER! What do you expect from a bureaucracy created under Franklin D. Roosevelt. The guy was basically a commie.


----------



## silkstone (May 17, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> If individual states want to create and own ISPs as public utilites then so be it but every state where utilies have been strictly controlled by the state innovation is lacking and service is at a bare minimum. If you want faster internet then petition your local government to open up the utility poles and ease the restrictions on digging up the roadways.



They are not allowed to do this, even when they want to. ISPs lobby pretty heavily to try and stop this from happening. They view it as unfair competition.



TheMailMan78 said:


> I love how people expect the FCC to save them from monopolies when the FCC was responsible for creating them to begin with. GIVE THEM MORE POWER! What do you expect from a bureaucracy created under Franklin D. Roosevelt. The guy was basically a commie.



Big corporations are much more scary than big government. Remove government, who do you think will step in to fill the void?

While the government isn't perfect, it is still democratically elected and answers to its constituency. Who do corporations answer to?

There is obviously a line here, that everyone draws. Some things should be social others private.

Would you be happy with a privatized social services (think workhouses), road system (pay $10 to use the roads to leave your town), Military, prison system, police force, medical (think paying before receiving EMT). Hell, while were at it, why not privatize all land? That way companies can charge for the air we breathe. Private land, private trees, the produce of the land should also belong to the landowner, surely?

With the importance of the internet getting greater, there are lots of people who believe it should start moving out of the hands of private companies, or that communities should at least be given the opportunity to establish their own ISPs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2014)

Steve Wozniak to the FCC: Keep the Internet Free

He referenced roads and used the analogy of paying per mile you drive which we don't do except on toll roads.  He sums up his thoughts with this:


			
				Steve Wozniak said:
			
		

> I frequently speak to different types of audiences all over the country. When I'm asked my feeling on Net Neutrality I tell the open truth. When I was first asked to "sign on" with some good people interested in Net Neutrality my initial thought was that the economic system works better with tiered pricing for various customers. On the other hand, I'm a founder of the EFF and I care a lot about individuals and their own importance. Finally, the thought hit me that every time and in every way that the telecommunications careers have had power or control, we the people wind up getting screwed. Every audience that I speak this statement and phrase to bursts into applause.


He's referencing the 1970s where telecoms owned everything relating to the phone lines including answering machines and again with cable providers doing the same thing today.  The FCC hasn't done it's job with cable and it's in danger of not doing the right thing again with internet service.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 19, 2014)

silkstone said:


> They are not allowed to do this, even when they want to. ISPs lobby pretty heavily to try and stop this from happening. They view it as unfair competition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You understand that big corporations already control the government right? Without big government they (big corporations) would have zero control. Seriously asking the FCC for help is like asking the hens to keep the fox in line.


----------



## silkstone (May 19, 2014)

And so who should we ask? I agree with you, but I'm really don't see the solution as allowing the industry to self-regulate.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2014)

Constitutional amendment forbidding appointments to government positions from the top 1000 grossing companies in the USA would be a good start.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 19, 2014)

Banning lobbyists and having term limits and limiting campaign contributions would be a start. Until then its stupid to ask government to change. How can you expect politicians who have been in power for 40+ years to say "Yeah I've done a horrible job. I'm gonna change everything now that the internet is becoming inconvenient for the serfs".

Follow the money. Its not about Blue vs. Red. Democrat vs. Republican. Its we the people vs. them.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2014)

Lobbying and campaign contributions are free speech.

Amendments can be forced upon the federal government by 3/4s of the states in agreement.  That's how the states are to clean up Washington.  The reason why they don't (e.g. 1 or 2 term limits) is because everyone in state legislatures has ambitions to go to Washington.  

Actually, it is about local politics.  Most incumbents hold their seats because people like them.  The problem is that when they get together, group think takes hold and they're always reaching for the piñata, not noticing all the corruption that's happening amongst themselves.  This translates into bills no one understands and federal code that is padded with gifts to favorites.

The solution is honest politicians...but that's an oxymoron.


----------



## Ahhzz (May 30, 2014)

Part of my "shout-out" at the FCC on their Comments page (located here for those curious). 
"_Net Neutrality. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Find a dictionary."_


----------



## Ahhzz (May 30, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Amendments can be forced upon the federal government by 3/4s of the states in agreement.



that's where the 27th amendment came from  It was "ratified" by the last required state in 1992, 202 years after first being introduced...
"Pleakley: Here, educate yourself."   

And I'm ALL FOR term limits.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 30, 2014)

ISPs in the USA should be reclassified as "Title II common carriers", where they are only able to provide a neutral service in that they you pay for internet and they provide that service without interference. So basically all they could do is provide you with a connection. Correct me if i am wrong on that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 30, 2014)

You're not wrong but by doing that, government would have to get its grubby hands (see NSA) out of it and they don't want to.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 31, 2014)

How does the infrastructure work in the USA? do individual companies maintain their own or is there like one company that maintains it and everyone rents that or is it public?


----------



## newconroer (May 31, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 2. Slower Speeds - America is ranked somewhere around 30th for internet speed globally and we're falling, fast.  This decision ensures that trend continues by encouraging ISPs to charge out the ass for bandwidth and give it to shareholders instead of improving infrastructure.



I believe this issue is a per capita problem. Between the overall size of the U.S. and the fact that more than half of it is rural, it's not surprising the coverage is poor and therefore the average speed is dropped significantly.

Now, the United Kindgom on the other hand, is tiny in contrast, and is also ranked pretty low for a first world country.


Having had some personal insight into how broadband works from a materials and cabinet cabling side of things - in terms of physical installation and cost - I do not believe that ISP throttling is a big culprit just yet. It may be for people in the cities, but low speed is still down to the poor hardware and aged infrastructures.


----------

