Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Hate Monopolies? Then You Should be Pissed About the Abolition of Net Neutrality
Comments
-
I;m against most ideas by the left these days. It's a good gauge
A leader presents legislation and works with Congress to get it passed. You know, the shit you are already calling Trump a failure for but gave Obama an eight year pass on.
This free market type wants market decisions made in the light of day. Not by bought and paid for regulators
If it is such an awesome thing Congress would have passed it if the Leader of the Free World had used his awesome teleprompter skills to sell it to the unwashed -
RaceBannon said:
I;m against most ideas by the left these days. It's a good gauge
A leader presents legislation and works with Congress to get it passed. You know, the shit you are already calling Trump a failure for but gave Obama an eight year pass on.
This free market type wants market decisions made in the light of day. Not by bought and paid for regulators
If it is such an awesome thing Congress would have passed it if the Leader of the Free World had used his awesome teleprompter skills to sell it to the unwashed
Pai left his Department of Justice post in February 2001 to serve as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives.[1]
Pai left Verizon in April 2003 and was hired as Deputy Chief Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. He returned to the Department of Justice to serve as Senior Counsel in the Office of Legal Policy in May 2004. He held that position until February 2005, when he was hired as Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights.
Between 2007 and 2011, Pai held several positions in the FCC's Office of General Counsel, serving most prominently as Deputy General Counsel. In this role, he had supervisory responsibility over several dozen lawyers in the Administrative Law Division and worked on a wide variety of regulatory and transactional matters involving the wireless, wireline, cable, Internet, media, and satellite industries.[1] In 2010, Pai was one of 55 individuals nationwide chosen for the 2011 Marshall Memorial Fellowship, a leadership development initiative of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.[1] Pai returned to the private sector in April 2011, working in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Jenner & Block where he was a partner in the Communications Practice.Jenner & Block represents telecommunications and media clients in a wide range of litigation in courts across the country. These cases cover the full gamut of issues, including spectrum licenses, media ownership, video programming and media content, intercarrier compensation and Administrative Procedure Act challenges to FCC orders.
If you can't see that this guy is a bought-and-paid for K Street lobbyist then I can't help you. -
And the ones that wrote Obama's EO are illiterate losers or from the business?
Get it in the open. Knowing the business is not a disqualifier
We can't all be community organizers -
enjoy your free porn while it lasts
-
Netflix & Google poured shit-ton of money & chinfluence into the last rule making.AZDuck said:If you can't see that this guy is a bought-and-paid for K Street lobbyist then I can't help you.
Some #brave Rep or Senator should introduce a bill. -
Netflix & Google poured shit-ton of money & chinfluence into the last rule making.GrundleStiltzkin said:AZDuck said:RaceBannon said:I;m against most ideas by the left these days. It's a good gauge
A leader presents legislation and works with Congress to get it passed. You know, the shit you are already calling Trump a failure for but gave Obama an eight year pass on.
This free market type wants market decisions made in the light of day. Not by bought and paid for regulators
If it is such an awesome thing Congress would have passed it if the Leader of the Free World had used his awesome teleprompter skills to sell it to the unwashedPai left his Department of Justice post in February 2001 to serve as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives.[1]
Pai left Verizon in April 2003 and was hired as Deputy Chief Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. He returned to the Department of Justice to serve as Senior Counsel in the Office of Legal Policy in May 2004. He held that position until February 2005, when he was hired as Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights.
Between 2007 and 2011, Pai held several positions in the FCC's Office of General Counsel, serving most prominently as Deputy General Counsel. In this role, he had supervisory responsibility over several dozen lawyers in the Administrative Law Division and worked on a wide variety of regulatory and transactional matters involving the wireless, wireline, cable, Internet, media, and satellite industries.[1] In 2010, Pai was one of 55 individuals nationwide chosen for the 2011 Marshall Memorial Fellowship, a leadership development initiative of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.[1] Pai returned to the private sector in April 2011, working in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Jenner & Block where he was a partner in the Communications Practice.Jenner & Block represents telecommunications and media clients in a wide range of litigation in courts across the country. These cases cover the full gamut of issues, including spectrum licenses, media ownership, video programming and media content, intercarrier compensation and Administrative Procedure Act challenges to FCC orders.
If you can't see that this guy is a bought-and-paid for K Street lobbyist then I can't help you.
Some #brave Rep or Senator should introduce a bill.
Truth. Battle between folks that want to keep the pipes open, and those who don't. But no GOP bill would make it out of committee (see McConnell is the guy who nominated Pai) and folks on this bored who are against Net Neutrality are doing Comcast's bidding. Why, I have no idea. -
Or: The chinfrastructure companies want to maximize their chinvestments. Naturally. The content companies want to distribute for the lowest possible cost. Naturally.
I fail to see heroes and villains in all this. -
I stand with AZDuck on this issue. So far at least... Threatening free porn is the last straw. Things are ok as they are. Leave well enough alone.
-
And as you note, a single politically appointed panel has the power to flip-flop on a major regulatory issue. To me, that disqualifies that body from effective arbitrating "neutrality" of anything.
-
What EO are you talking about? The FCC classified ISPs as Title II, not Obama.RaceBannon said:And the ones that wrote Obama's EO are illiterate losers or from the business?
Get it in the open. Knowing the business is not a disqualifier
We can't all be community organizers -
If it was an actual free market, I could accept it, but ISPs have virtually no viable competition in most markets.RaceBannon said:I;m against most ideas by the left these days. It's a good gauge
A leader presents legislation and works with Congress to get it passed. You know, the shit you are already calling Trump a failure for but gave Obama an eight year pass on.
This free market type wants market decisions made in the light of day. Not by bought and paid for regulators
If it is such an awesome thing Congress would have passed it if the Leader of the Free World had used his awesome teleprompter skills to sell it to the unwashed -
I did write one and accidentally deleted it. I'll write it up again here in a second. I'm working my 9-5 so I need to find time to sneak it in.AZDuck said:
@DerekJohnsonoregonblitzkrieg said:Could have sworn I just read a great poast from ToddTurnerLives about how net neutrality works using electrical companies as an example and it went poof...
@DerekIsKim
@Dereks_75k_lover
@DerekReallyIsKim -
False equivalency because the chinfrastructure companies and content companies exist in 2 completely different competitive markets.GrundleStiltzkin said:Or: The chinfrastructure companies want to maximize their chinvestments. Naturally. The content companies want to distribute for the lowest possible cost. Naturally.
I fail to see heroes and villains in all this.
ISP's, especially high-speed cable ones, are (and need to be treated like) utilities. Many markets are limited to a single high-speed ISP because of extreme barriers to entry for any competition... whether they're either too remote to be economically feasible to set up in infrastructure in or (in downtown Seattle's case with Comcast) there are historical landmark laws protecting the only existing infrastructure.
Content companies exist in a much more open market where the only real barriers to entry are the web hosts and search engines they have to work to get their content to pop up on searches.
So I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to let an ISP that has near monopolistic power in many markets to be allowed to do whatever they please to maximize their investments BECAUSE there's no competition to block them from abusing consumers and content providers without net neutrality. -
NESnake always dialed in on this subject.NEsnake12 said:
False equivalency because the chinfrastructure companies and content companies exist in 2 completely different competitive markets.GrundleStiltzkin said:Or: The chinfrastructure companies want to maximize their chinvestments. Naturally. The content companies want to distribute for the lowest possible cost. Naturally.
I fail to see heroes and villains in all this.
ISP's, especially high-speed cable ones, are (and need to be treated like) utilities. Many markets are limited to a single high-speed ISP because of extreme barriers to entry for any competition... whether they're either too remote to be economically feasible to set up in infrastructure in or (in downtown Seattle's case with Comcast) there are historical landmark laws protecting the only existing infrastructure.
Content companies exist in a much more open market where the only real barriers to entry are the web hosts and search engines they have to work to get their content to pop up on searches.
So I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to let an ISP that has near monopolistic power in many markets to be allowed to do whatever they please to maximize their investments BECAUSE there's no competition to block them from abusing consumers and content providers without net neutrality. -
The heart of the net-neutrality debate is whether or not Internet Service Providers should be able to charge different prices to different customers or if the rate charged should be fixed per unit the way electricity or water utilities work. Right now, ISPs have to treat all traffic flowing over their network the same. When you request to view a page on hardcorehusky.com your ISP has to transmit that traffic with exactly the same priority as your neighbor's traffic who is watching a movie on Netflix. What getting rid of net neutrality will do is essentially allow ISPs to treat traffic any way they want, prioritizing some traffic over other traffic or charging more for certain types of traffic.
Another way to think about this is to compare ISPs to electricity companies and the internet to electricity. Let's say Boeing and the power company cut a deal so that the power company charges prohibitively high rates for electricity on their grid that is consumed by airplane manufacturers. Boeing, a massive company that has been around for a century and has billions of dollars in the bank(or maybe they used to before they fucked up the 787) can pay the high prices but the upstart airplane manufacturer can't afford to operate because electricity costs are too high. So, to start an airplane company you would not only have to build the airplane but you would also have to first create your own economical supply of power which isn't possible.
-
Porn example for you:oregonblitzkrieg said:I stand with AZDuck on this issue. So far at least... Threatening free porn is the last straw. Things are ok as they are. Leave well enough alone.
Say an ISP decides there's a lot of money to be made by getting into the porn game. Without net neutrality, there's nothing to stop them from slowing down packet delivery for all those free porn sites that we love and thus slowing down our ability to watch. They could openly make a site like pornhub pay more money to them to get better content delivery speed, and any other site that can't afford to compete like that is fucked. But what if the only way those sites can afford this is to start charging you? Bye bye easy access to free porn.
That's the hypothetical danger of losing net neutrality. -
The most hellscape, nightmarish scenario that I can think of is if Kim Grinolds cuts a deal with Comcast to be the sole provider of University of Washington football news on the Comcast network. Comcast could essentially block you from accessing hardcorehusky.com!!!!!!
-
The problem is the Internets is lots of thing including information...much different than electricity or phone service. You don't want anyone in charge of filtering that, but if you had a choice of the lesser of 2 evils would you chose the govt or private industry to have control of that? Up to this point it's been private industry and they haven't been able to control shite...I'm missing the evil event that happened that said this structure was wrong and we need govt to take over.
When one of the main people pushing it says it will allow the FCC and its political appointees to shape “media policy, social policy, oversight of the political process, [and] issues of free speech.” that should scare lots of people. -
Great job missing the point. The government isn't taking over shit, net neutrality has been the de facto default for decades and the FCC is just now trying to get rid of it and let corporations take over. The definition of net NEUTRALITY is that there is no filter on information... all internet content must be treated equally.HoustonHusky said:The problem is the Internets is lots of thing including information...much different than electricity or phone service. You don't want anyone in charge of filtering that, but if you had a choice of the lesser of 2 evils would you chose the govt or private industry to have control of that? Up to this point it's been private industry and they haven't been able to control shite...I'm missing the evil event that happened that said this structure was wrong and we need govt to take over.
When one of the main people pushing it says it will allow the FCC and its political appointees to shape “media policy, social policy, oversight of the political process, [and] issues of free speech.” that should scare lots of people. -
I don't trust Comcast any more than I trust the government.
But this looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist to me. -
So if I like my porn, I can keep it ?NEsnake12 said:
False equivalency because the chinfrastructure companies and content companies exist in 2 completely different competitive markets.GrundleStiltzkin said:Or: The chinfrastructure companies want to maximize their chinvestments. Naturally. The content companies want to distribute for the lowest possible cost. Naturally.
I fail to see heroes and villains in all this.
ISP's, especially high-speed cable ones, are (and need to be treated like) utilities. Many markets are limited to a single high-speed ISP because of extreme barriers to entry for any competition... whether they're either too remote to be economically feasible to set up in infrastructure in or (in downtown Seattle's case with Comcast) there are historical landmark laws protecting the only existing infrastructure.
Content companies exist in a much more open market where the only real barriers to entry are the web hosts and search engines they have to work to get their content to pop up on searches.
So I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to let an ISP that has near monopolistic power in many markets to be allowed to do whatever they please to maximize their investments BECAUSE there's no competition to block them from abusing consumers and content providers without net neutrality. -
Axe Ajit Pai.PurpleThrobber said:
So if I like my porn, I can keep it ?NEsnake12 said:
False equivalency because the chinfrastructure companies and content companies exist in 2 completely different competitive markets.GrundleStiltzkin said:Or: The chinfrastructure companies want to maximize their chinvestments. Naturally. The content companies want to distribute for the lowest possible cost. Naturally.
I fail to see heroes and villains in all this.
ISP's, especially high-speed cable ones, are (and need to be treated like) utilities. Many markets are limited to a single high-speed ISP because of extreme barriers to entry for any competition... whether they're either too remote to be economically feasible to set up in infrastructure in or (in downtown Seattle's case with Comcast) there are historical landmark laws protecting the only existing infrastructure.
Content companies exist in a much more open market where the only real barriers to entry are the web hosts and search engines they have to work to get their content to pop up on searches.
So I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to let an ISP that has near monopolistic power in many markets to be allowed to do whatever they please to maximize their investments BECAUSE there's no competition to block them from abusing consumers and content providers without net neutrality. -
Is this part of the Mooslim takeover?AZDuck said:
Axe Ajit Pai.PurpleThrobber said:
So if I like my porn, I can keep it ?NEsnake12 said:
False equivalency because the chinfrastructure companies and content companies exist in 2 completely different competitive markets.GrundleStiltzkin said:Or: The chinfrastructure companies want to maximize their chinvestments. Naturally. The content companies want to distribute for the lowest possible cost. Naturally.
I fail to see heroes and villains in all this.
ISP's, especially high-speed cable ones, are (and need to be treated like) utilities. Many markets are limited to a single high-speed ISP because of extreme barriers to entry for any competition... whether they're either too remote to be economically feasible to set up in infrastructure in or (in downtown Seattle's case with Comcast) there are historical landmark laws protecting the only existing infrastructure.
Content companies exist in a much more open market where the only real barriers to entry are the web hosts and search engines they have to work to get their content to pop up on searches.
So I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to let an ISP that has near monopolistic power in many markets to be allowed to do whatever they please to maximize their investments BECAUSE there's no competition to block them from abusing consumers and content providers without net neutrality. -
Don't think I made an equivalency betwixt the two. In very simple terms, those are two of many business aims concerned parties are pursuing through governmental action.NEsnake12 said:
False equivalency because the chinfrastructure companies and content companies exist in 2 completely different competitive markets.GrundleStiltzkin said:Or: The chinfrastructure companies want to maximize their chinvestments. Naturally. The content companies want to distribute for the lowest possible cost. Naturally.
I fail to see heroes and villains in all this.
ISP's, especially high-speed cable ones, are (and need to be treated like) utilities. Many markets are limited to a single high-speed ISP because of extreme barriers to entry for any competition... whether they're either too remote to be economically feasible to set up in infrastructure in or (in downtown Seattle's case with Comcast) there are historical landmark laws protecting the only existing infrastructure.
Content companies exist in a much more open market where the only real barriers to entry are the web hosts and search engines they have to work to get their content to pop up on searches.
So I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to let an ISP that has near monopolistic power in many markets to be allowed to do whatever they please to maximize their investments BECAUSE there's no competition to block them from abusing consumers and content providers without net neutrality.
There seems to be a big guy vs little guys narrative in this debate. Big big money came in on both sides. No one gives a shit about sweatpants blogs. Netflix cares very much about its licensing deals.
The last mile comparison between isp and utilities kinda works and kinda doesn't. We haven't seen anyway to get electricity into a house other than a wire and probably won't. Sorry Nikola, good try good effort. There are two, maybe 4, connectivities for residiential broadband. I wonder what more regulation would do to investments in fixed point wireless, which is a big deal for underserved areas.
Then there's the focus on what might be taken away. Ignored are what could be added. For instance, QoS on voip, or site-to-site vpn.
Most this shit, I don't really care about. But I guess why I don't want FCC involvement is because of FCC involvement. -
Ok, a serious question.
We have Google and AT&T fiber internet here. It's fucking retarded how fast it is. Like the entire Viet Cong army could be at your house streaming 4k porn at your house with no lag.
I just don't see how you could tell between a preferred and non-preferred web content. It's like 1080p and 4k. I can kind of see a difference, but it's not enough to matter. If Netflix gets all 1,000mbps and HH only gets 500mbps no one will notice. -
This is all a mute point when the meteor hits
-
Funny thing about Netflix is they no longer care, at least they aren't doing much this time around. They are big enough to pay whatever extortion Comcast wants, and they are willing to do it because it stifles most of their competition.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Don't think I made an equivalency betwixt the two. In very simple terms, those are two of many business aims concerned parties are pursuing through governmental action.NEsnake12 said:
False equivalency because the chinfrastructure companies and content companies exist in 2 completely different competitive markets.GrundleStiltzkin said:Or: The chinfrastructure companies want to maximize their chinvestments. Naturally. The content companies want to distribute for the lowest possible cost. Naturally.
I fail to see heroes and villains in all this.
ISP's, especially high-speed cable ones, are (and need to be treated like) utilities. Many markets are limited to a single high-speed ISP because of extreme barriers to entry for any competition... whether they're either too remote to be economically feasible to set up in infrastructure in or (in downtown Seattle's case with Comcast) there are historical landmark laws protecting the only existing infrastructure.
Content companies exist in a much more open market where the only real barriers to entry are the web hosts and search engines they have to work to get their content to pop up on searches.
So I'm of the opinion that it's not fair to let an ISP that has near monopolistic power in many markets to be allowed to do whatever they please to maximize their investments BECAUSE there's no competition to block them from abusing consumers and content providers without net neutrality.
There seems to be a big guy vs little guys narrative in this debate. Big big money came in on both sides. No one gives a shit about sweatpants blogs. Netflix cares very much about its licensing deals.
The last mile comparison between isp and utilities kinda works and kinda doesn't. We haven't seen anyway to get electricity into a house other than a wire and probably won't. Sorry Nikola, good try good effort. There are two, maybe 4, connectivities for residiential broadband. I wonder what more regulation would do to investments in fixed point wireless, which is a big deal for underserved areas.
Then there's the focus on what might be taken away. Ignored are what could be added. For instance, QoS on voip, or site-to-site vpn.
Most this shit, I don't really care about. But I guess why I don't want FCC involvement is because of FCC involvement. -
Or understood.RaceBannon said:Net Neutrality
Climate Change
Just not discussed enough here -
What in the fuck is taking that thing so long?phineas said:This is all a mute point when the meteor hits
-
People will have to start masturbating the old fashioned way... having sex.
