|
|
Post by lionsarm on Dec 13, 2017 15:21:38 GMT -5
You said "made euqal, fair, or better." You did not say make perfect. Amtrak is far better than before the takeover. The subsidies benefit the rail-travel industry in general, including commercial product transportation on those same rails. So my example works. Also, you never instituted a time period limitation. Examples from the late 50s to today all exist, I just went with some I recall from childhood. As much as I hated the idea at the time, bailing out the auto induistry was actually a pretty good move by the govenment, given that the money was paid back and we have seen a resurgence of American cars (although they seem to be spiraling down of late). The government intevening and limiting the shift a resident could do so that the odds of malpractice go down seems like a pretty good move where the government took over. I do not deny their many failures as well. The point is, you and the rest of your militia who so deeply hate the governement would benefit from a more middle of the road perspective. I frmly believe we are overgoverned, but at the same time acknowledge that we need some policing of our coroproate execytives, because while politicians may or may not have my best interest in mind, I know for damn sure that the CEO of a major corporation does not have my interest, or my neighbors' interest, in mind. All you need to do is look at what is happening now in the federal government after a minority of the population elected a CEO to the white house. It's a clown show with all sorts of self-serving actions that will take time to undo after the head clown is impeeched. I definitely agree that some regulation is needed for a such a widespread public utility like the internet to protect consumers. And I also support the overall concept of 'net neutrality'. However, I have two reservations on how the debate is framed and policy implemented. 1) Enacted in 2015, Net neutrality only applies to ISP's (internet service providers) such as Verizon, ATT, and Spectrum. The FCC did not enforce a newly modified Federal Communications Act (FCA) that was passed in congress, but simply applied the old FCA that was crafted to regulate our landline telephones some 80 years ago. Therefore, once 'net neutrality' was enforced, ISP's were treated like pacific bell whereas companies like google, facebook, netflix, hulu, apple...etc. (i.e. content providers) were not subject to 'net neutrality' rules. That is, when the FCA was first passed, there was no such thing as 'phone service providers' and 'phone content providers'. Furthermore, the big tech companies were instrumental in crafting 'net neutrality' rules adopted by the FCC because it only applied to ISP's. So I agree that companies such as ATT should not throttle internet speeds, but content providers such as apple/facebook should also not censor information. For instance, apple removed some encryption apps from its app store in certain jurisdiction kowtowing to governmental pressure. Also, google routinely censors users searches depending on where the search is occurring. If ATT throttles internet speeds based on the ability of certain companies to pay, it is a threat to internet freedom. But internet freedom is also, and routinely, threatened when content providers censor and restrict information flow with little regulatory oversight. There will be no free and open internet when ISP's are regulated by 'net neutrality' while content providers, what many call 'Internet Information providers', are free to censor and control the flow of information. Many of these content providers such as facebook and twitter are now so ubiquitous in peoples lives that they themselves can be viewed as a public utility. In fact, Mark Zuckerberg has always believed that facebook is a social utility. Applying a nearly century old communications act meant to regulate telephone service does not capture the uniqueness and importance of the internet, because the internet is not just internet providers, but also content behemoths working together to provide us with a digital world. 2) Although difficult in our current political climate, the long term and more stable solution is to craft a new Federal Communications Act that applies specifically to the internet and with regulatory oversight for both ISP's and content providers. A congressional process would bring all players to the table. The current trajectory of applying Title II regulatory restrictions through the FCC guarantees that 'net neutrality' would be as fickle as the changing winds of presidential politics. This is exactly what we are seeing with the change over from the Obama to the Trump administration. |
|
|
|
Post by kukae on Dec 13, 2017 16:02:10 GMT -5
I look at my cable company and there are a bunch of channels I don't get that I want. You are stuck with the channels they have chosen and their packages of premium channels. Sometimes channels get temporarily blocked because they can't negotiate the fees. If someone decides to start up a new channel, how do they get the cable companies to carry their programming? And, I don't have much choice. I have the telephone company providing television, but they have the same problem, just with different channels. This is what I imagine my internet service is going to be like once net neutrality disappears, since it's the same two companies. I will be stuck with the ISP I have and stuck with what they decide to allow me to receive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Dec 13, 2017 16:54:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rugbydog on Dec 13, 2017 18:19:18 GMT -5
Name one thing the government has taken over and made equal, fair or better. Something as open as the internet would never be able to be controlled by a monopoly. There will always be a rogue startup. The postal services. I can send a letter almost anywhere in the US for less than a dollar. |
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Dec 13, 2017 22:29:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Dec 13, 2017 23:14:48 GMT -5
Actually, that is a pretty confused and misleading article. It goes off the rails of reality pretty early by claiming the internet was not regulated "up until two or three years ago." The FCC was regulating ISPs for misbehavior well before the switch to Title II but lost a court case to Verizon that led to the decision to classify ISPs as common carriers. There has long been--and continues to be--a large community supporting net neutrality. It has nothing to do with the government helping any corporations and is not really similar to the management of spectrum. |
|
|
|
Post by Odin on Dec 14, 2017 2:27:14 GMT -5
Odin - I completely agree with you on net neutrality. But, if the new law takes effect, why would this forum cease to exist? There are several vectors that could cause this forum to not exist with the absolution of the in-place net neutrality regulations. I emphasize the could, but each of the concerns I dictate below have been discussed ad nauseum among internet professionals. This forum is successful because it's free and because it's anonymous. In a small community such as volleyball, both factors are important. The repeal of the net neutrality rules would challenge the operating costs of maintaining this forum. ISP's could limit bandwidth to a point where it would be a frustrating experience to use this site. ISP's could go after the larger proboards host to limit bandwidth for tens of thousands of related forums and proboards would need to charge to host the forum. Currently, all revenue from ads goes to proboards in support of the technology this forum depends upon. Moderators receive no compensation for their roles here. Your ISP could begin charging you to access volley talk as part of a subscription package. Some ISP's may not "pick up" the "proboards channel" and many users would not be able to connect. Your ISP may place additional ads on top of the already heavy ads on this forum reducing the user experience and likely reducing revenue to proboards, who depends on that revenue to host this forum. Most economists agree that access to bandwidth will also cost customers more money. There are no guarantees the service will improve for that cost. Some ISP's are already citing Ajit Pai's intention to repeal to raise their fees. Your anonymity would also be challenged. Under the repeal of net neutrality guidelines in place, which is the threat tomorrow, your ISP would be allowed to sell your browsing history, including potentially to someone interested in identifying all users to volleytalk. Lastly, the moderators here can keep this forum moderately moderated and effective at sharing messages because of our anonymity as well. I would struggle to be able to balance the risk-to-reward ratio of maintaining this community. |
|
|
|
Post by kellerowl on Dec 14, 2017 9:13:30 GMT -5
Name one thing the government has taken over and made equal, fair or better. Something as open as the internet would never be able to be controlled by a monopoly. There will always be a rogue startup. The postal services. I can send a letter almost anywhere in the US for less than a dollar. Yes that is a great service but it loses over $5 billion dollars each year that must be subsidized by tax payers. So that is not the "real cost" to send a letter. So again not efficient. |
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Dec 14, 2017 9:57:22 GMT -5
Name one thing the government has taken over and made equal, fair or better. Something as open as the internet would never be able to be controlled by a monopoly. There will always be a rogue startup. The postal services. I can send a letter almost anywhere in the US for less than a dollar. Call me ignorant but this is apples to oranges. The government isn’t taking over anything, it is maintaining the status quo. A status quo that has made a lot of ISP’s a lot of money. You want examples where the government has made things fair, equal or better in the same vein? Take the fact that we have some of the cleanest drinking water in the world. And when we don’t, it’s because people broke laws, and those against regulations failed to punish them. Or how about that we have one of / the safest aviation system in the world. Because the government tightly regulates the industry. Incidents still happen, but relatively few in comparison to poor/in regulated countries. Or how about anti-trust laws, those have slowed down the growth and limited the potential of monopolies. Copyright and patent laws that restrict people from stealing work. Regulation is needed. Basic, fair play. Go too far and it can have issues. Don’t go far enough and it can have worse issues. Nothing good will come out of this repeal for the average Joe, Mr and Mrs Small Business, etc... this is just another play to deregulate without taking into the cost of deregulation. |
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Dec 14, 2017 10:03:03 GMT -5
Name one thing the government has taken over and made equal, fair or better. Something as open as the internet would never be able to be controlled by a monopoly. There will always be a rogue startup. The postal services. I can send a letter almost anywhere in the US for less than a dollar. And to take it one step further look at how the commercialization of our news, information and media has absolutely destroyed our country. Everything is based on what people want to consume, and not what people need to see. The internet needs to be open, not at the mercy of ISP’s who will dictate who can see what based on money. Mark my words, this will have the potential to exponentially create more problems within the fabric of our democracy. Not saying it definitively will, but it’s easy to see it going down that path. |
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Dec 14, 2017 10:28:28 GMT -5
Sorry Odin, Net neutrality is not neutral. The effect of this Washington based law basically puts politicians in charge of the net rather than the participants. No it doesn't. Back away from the Fox News and get a clue. |
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Dec 14, 2017 10:34:29 GMT -5
The postal services. I can send a letter almost anywhere in the US for less than a dollar. Yes that is a great service but it loses over $5 billion dollars each year that must be subsidized by tax payers. So that is not the "real cost" to send a letter. So again not efficient. The USPS losses money each year because Republicans passed a law stating they had to fund their pensions 75 years into the future. Net Neutrality simply states ISP's cannot control internet content. There is NOTHING that states the government will control content |
|
|
|
Post by TCMullet on Dec 14, 2017 11:45:38 GMT -5
I am puzzled by three things:
1. If the 2015 regs are so important, how did we live before 2015?
2. If Steve Wozniak is against repealing the 2015 regs (along with many other internet founders), then they must have good reasons.
3. Last evening and today, NO ONE is talking about this on radio or TV. I don't know why.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Dec 14, 2017 12:20:45 GMT -5
I am puzzled by three things: 1. If the 2015 regs are so important, how did we live before 2015? 2. If Steve Wozniak is against repealing the 2015 regs (along with many other internet founders), then they must have good reasons. 3. Last evening and today, NO ONE is talking about this on radio or TV. I don't know why. 1. The pre-2015 FCC regulations were based on Title I but Verizon sued that the FCC couldn't use Title I and the court ruled the FCC had to use Title II--classifying ISPs as common carriers. So that's what the FCC did in 2015. 2. What are you puzzled by? Other than ISPs, the internet industry is strongly in favor of keeping the current regulations. The good reasons have been mentioned in this thread already. 3. Can't really comment on radio or TV--not a good source for news in my view (unless all you want is Trump or anti-Trump related), but this is currently one of the top headlines on nbcnews.com: www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/it-s-decision-day-future-internet-n829336 |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 14, 2017 12:36:22 GMT -5
Name one thing the government has taken over and made equal, fair or better. Something as open as the internet would never be able to be controlled by a monopoly. There will always be a rogue startup. No, given the barriers to entry, there will never be a "rogue" startup capable of serving large swaths of the population. Rural Americans should be terrified. |
|
