Slashdot Mirror
Trump Names Two Opponents of Net Neutrality To Oversee FCC Transition Team (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: President-elect Donald Trump has appointed two new advisers to his transition team that will oversee his FCC and telecommunications policy agenda. Both of the new advisers are staunch opponents of net neutrality regulations. Jeff Eisenach, one of the two newly appointed advisers, is an economist who has previously worked as a consultant for Verizon and its trade association. In September 2014, Eisenach testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee and said, "Net neutrality would not improve consumer welfare or protect the public interest." He has also worked for the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and in a blog post wrote, "Net neutrality is crony capitalism pure and simple." Mark Jamison, the other newly appointed adviser, also has a long history of battling against net neutrality oversight. Jamison formerly worked on Sprint's lobbying team and now leads the University of Florida's Public Utility Research Center. Both Eisenach and Jamison are considered leading adversaries of net neutrality who worked hard to prevent the rules from being passed last year. For the uninitiated, the rules passed last year prevent companies internet providers from discriminating against any online content or services. For example, without net neutrality rules, internet providers like Comcast and Verizon could charge internet subscribers more for using sites like Netflix. The FCC's net neutrality rules would protect consumers from paying exorbitant fees for internet use.
This is simple. They are ether common carriers or they are not.
If they are common carriers then they can not inspect the content they carry and as such are not liable for that content.
If they are NOT common carriers then they can inspect the content and charge what they like. However, they are liable for the content they carry. Thus if they choose to not be common carriers and someone is transmitting Child porn, threats, selling drugs, pirated music and movies,etc. Then they are liable for the transport of that data and we should prosecute them for it.
Do it just a few times and all the ISP's will be on board with becoming common carriers.
I have to say it, folks. Looking across the pond and seeing what's going on in the US right now is so patently absurd, words fail me. I'm seriously worried. You're having a Type A autocrat in charge soon and clear and present dangers encroaching on basic foundational structures, social contracts and rights in the US.
I acutally have a serious question regarding the most recent developments:
What are you doing about this? Personally, I mean. What are you thinking about doing?
Anybody of you guys going all-out prepper, stocking up on water-filters, assault-rifles, ammo, gear, tools and checking to buy some land in the flyovers?
Anybody else considering migrating to Canada, South America, Europe or something?
Please reply in this thread.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Please tell us how higher costs, lower speeds, less competition, and blocked/gated content will make america great again.
I for one am looking forward to paying extra for a Google and Wikipedia subscription on my cable bill. I can't quite afford the all access bundle but, hey, who needs every port. Netflix is overrated anyway.
Yes tell us how fair internet access is actually slavery and crooked government and that Veriozon(tm) Internet(tm) pure capitalist freedom.
Additionally, could you also tell me how I'm a CTR shill and that as a Liberal, that I'm actually the real racist.
I find that those who oppose any kind of societal safety net have never had to use the resources of one.
And they never expect to.
This.... is delusional. You will age. You /will/ fall ill. Be it 6 months out of work for a septic knee (like what Tom Brady had), or full disability because nobody wants to hire someone who has to go to doctors' appointments 1/4 of the days out of a month on a regular basis. BAD SHIT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU SOMETIME IN YOUR LIFE THAT YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PLAN FOR.
I don't like wishing bad things on people. I don't need to. Because they happen anyway.
Against the safety net? Good luck to you. You'll need it.
--
BMO
It's premature to say what Mr. Trump will actually do. He has given anti-trust some lip service, which suggests he'd preserve NN in order prevent big telecoms from also controlling big media. But whether he follows through is another matter.
While he may prefer trust-busting actions, he may trade it away for something else that he wants from Congress, being the deal-maker he is. The up-side is that he may be willing to cut deals with Democrats also, but it would only work for issues that divide the GOP, for the Democrats don't have enough seats to produce a viable bill otherwise.
Trump is unlike every other president. Burn the history books and get the popcorn out. I don't know whether Trump will take us to heaven, hell, the loony bin, or something in between; but I am certain it will be an interesting ride. Don't forget to buckle up, and keep your hands inside at all times.
Table-ized A.I.
For those of you who believe that the net neutrality regulations that the FCC are trying to impose actually is what you believe it to be, you should actually go ahead and read the regulations.
Your understanding of what "net neutrality" means and what the FCC is actually doing are different. By reading the regulations you might actually understand why what the FCC is proposing is, well, bad.
It's 2016. You can go read the stuff yourself. Even the preamble to the regulations is full of inaccuracies, half-truths, and outright lies. For example, the FCC tries to say that its current regulations are what made the Internet great - except that the FCC's attempts at regulating the internet have never actually taken effect. Then it gets better.
It was always BS. Until I don't have to pay extra through the nose to my ISP in order to be allowed to run an irc server I'll never believe this net neutrality crap was legit.
Good point, although I think most people are probably more concerned with being blocked from running their own mail and web servers. I'm sure there were decent reasons, but I think they are reasons that were decided upon a long time ago and has more to do with getting people to pay business-class ISP fees.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Though it is all looking like a non-issue as wireless services are eating everyone's lunch at this point, and if SpaceX steps into the arena with their thousands of mini-com-sats Musk is going to turn around and eat theirs across the whole globe and all the way out to Mars.
Soon you'll be able to pay your starving cable company $5 a month of "premium" Youtube access and another $5 for "premium" Netflix access.
America is going to be great again! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
In this particular case, I'm pretty sure his mom is still his safety net.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why is Trump taking pro-media stance? The same media conglomerates that attacked him relentlessly now get to further consolidate and lock in their stranglehold.
Even when they do go on social assistance, they have no idea that they did and still speak out against it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
Pure conservatives/libertarians are not bothered by cancer water: some humans will evolve superior livers to filter the pollution and produce immune offspring, comparable to Kevin Costner evolving gills in water-world. Competition and the Great Market-Place will produce a superior race. Don't let the pesky gov't interface with evolution.
It's Ayn Rand-ism and Social Darwinism. With dog-eat-dog, the superior dog lives and produces better dogs. Mad Max is not a dystopia: it's the human breading field. If you don't like it, you'll die off and those who do like it will thrive. Oh, and bring your guns. Gotta have guns.
Table-ized A.I.
Moving to Detroit?
Look who's lecturing us: YOUR country Brexited your asses into recession.
Table-ized A.I.
America is doing just fine thanks. Trump just released a video saying what he will be doing, so you don't have to wonder or believe what a bunch of media guys who detest him CLAIM he will do.
Among them:
TPP cancelled. Enjoy whatever country you are in joining that!
More shale production - vast reduction in CO2. We are doing our part, how about your nation?
Two regulations have to be removed for every new one created - while you strangle as regulations pile up.
Ethics reform - five year ban on administration officials becoming lobbyists, can never lobby for foreign nations. I wonder how cozy corporations are to YOUR government...
Investigation of visa program abuses (read: companies bringing in lots of foreign programmers and then severely underpaying them as they hold the green card over them).
Energy grid to be hardened against attacks. As your countries power grid fails over the coming decade you can think back on this as you are sitting in the cold with a flashlight...
The funny thing is many of these items (like TPP being cancelled, or visa abuse) were once darlings of the Slashdot liberals. But now that Trump supports them... well I guess they decided fascism is better than Trump? Oh well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Are you using that personal mail and web server to promote your consulting business. Don't lie, you know you are. Pay for the business tier, cheap liar.
Snark as you will, but I do think this highlights the underlying issue. The pro-net-neutrality vision that I see is trying to eliminate the differential charging of internet access services based on type of use (assuming same amount of use). The idea is that this creates a platform that many people can build on. The anti-net-neutrality vision that I see is derogatorily referred to as a kind of 'crony capitalism' where the powerful ISP captains of industry get to leverage their control and power to influence the evolution of the internet based innovation. I.e. giving sweet heart deals to the technology or technology business owner of their preference. Certain Ayn Randian contingents of the hardest-core forms of leisse fairre capitalism believe that to get to that position of power, the ISP owner was smarter than the other competitors, so is likely to make the smartest decisions and sweet heart deals to influence things in they way they prefer.
Think of it like this- that "business class" higher margin can be thought of as the ISP imposing taxes on their customers. If they have one customer, that uses the same bandwidth as every other user, but makes 100X the profit, they can charge up to say 1/10 of that extra 99X profit as a "super business class" tier that the customer must buy if they want to be retained as a customer. If the market is sufficiently non-competitive due to lack of options, or collusions amongst a few big ISP players, then the 100X innovator will just go ahead and pay the extra new non-governmental 10% tax because the other choice is to go out of business.
Look who's lecturing us: YOUR country Brexited your asses into recession.
That should give you an idea just how fucked you really are. When even Boris Johnson is all like, 'what a muppet!' you should probably take note.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Actually I run both, and no, I don't have a consulting business.
And, all my VPN profiles for getting around the SMTP block are name "fuckcomcast" because I really do not appreciate their shit.
Someone had to do it.
it's just lopsided to the right nearly always. Even our "left" is mostly right. Obama was Bush in black face for the most part, yea he did some good things, and he did some really really bad things.
I was hoping that Trump would be so hated by his own party nothing would happen but I have to say nearly every subsequent headline sounds like a legacy of pain - raping the FCC that was finally doing the right thing is just the newest set of overwhelming stupid washing over the US.
Democrats are as much for blame for putting up someone nearly as hated. Trump has the lowest likeability of *ANY* president elect in history. Read about it on theintercept.com I'm tired.
Look who's lecturing us: YOUR country Brexited your asses into recession.
We'll see who gets to gloat.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Sneakernetting would cut out the crap. Who wouldn't rather hear more about new Lithium Ion battery technology than Poodles Are From Mars?
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
We might get a few Yanks coming over, which would be nice.
You are welcome to anyone who flees the US over an election and can't even wait to see what kind of policies are actually implemented. We have a term for them here: ""Blithering Idiot", or "Dumber than a bag full of hammers".
Happily for the world the natural wonders of New Zealand will not put up with idiocy long, and natural selection will prove its worth once again.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes AC moving video content will be the huge issue. HD and 4K video getting a free ride to consumer grade accounts on a lot of content ready devices at the ISP end.
The US has only so many wide fast interconnects nationally for consumer grade data.
Content providers are getting cash per show or movie. The national or local brand ISP is getting paid per account. Who is paying for the upgrade of the tubes and pipes that interconnect nationally?
Time for some infrastructure upgrade payments along the US wide, fat, fast networks. Pay up or the packets from that cheap fly over state hosting with dam power gets slowed before they ever reach a state with paved roads.
The content provider then has to make a per state and a national telco deal for real business grade networking. Pay for the upkeep of a real national network and get a real US wide connection.
All that national dark optical is in the hands of a few brands. Lots of local loops per state but the huge national telco interconnects never got much new private sector competition.
What can a content streaming brand do? Offer every big, medium and small ISP a "free" server and local storage of the most requested content?
Do deals with every city, state and national "telco" for access to their private networks to even get to the ISP?
Peer the HD data out to a multinational via Ireland or New Zealand and network the steam back into the USA wide via deals they made?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Net Neutrality as proposed is like saying your State has "Right to Work" laws. If you believe those laws give workers Rights, you are grossly mistaken. As GP stated, read what is being proposed and then make up your mind.
If you want another example, what exactly Patriotic about the "Patriot Act"? Yeah, this is not a new political trick.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
From what I've seen, NN means either: A) ISPs cannot give preferential service to Content Provider Z vs X. or... B) ISPs who own monopoly-level back-bone should be treated as common-carriers and allow competing ISPs to connect to said back-bone at FRAND rates. Personally, I am much more in favor of B than A, but then I have Windstream as my monopoly provider. :-)
You mean like a CDN?
ISP's have been playing games with content providers and backbone internet companies for years. Netflix offered to install a FREE CDN on all the ISP's networks that would have decreased their network traffic to the backbone by over 50% but they refused because they wanted Netflix to pay to get to their customers. Ultimately Netflix caved and paid the toll and raised their rates to compensate. Net Neutrality would make this type of extortion illegal. Right now AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, et al own the last mile AND competing VOD services. This is a complete conflict of interest.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Human breading field...that sounds tasty! Do you use anything special, like sourdough or Hawaiian sweetbread crumbs?
Who wins? A national super fund network with free and equal access so every US ISP can get vast amounts of HD content to each user from a few national servers? :)
Telco monopolies and cartels demanding a new "upkeep" payment to the east, west coast and fly over states per packet?
The telcos forget they just push packets. They are not making great content. If content is making billions in profit, become a content producer too.
If the US gets closed telco networks with packet payments in the east, mid and west, it will be cheaper to send content to every ISP on encrypted media per week by post
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Why is Trump taking pro-media stance?
Trump just read the riot act to the media elite.
On a larger scale, one for the first thing Trump plans to do is to kill US involvement in the TPP, which is pretty much a creation of the media companies...
In many ways, all along Trump has shown he is very much against the media industry. So if any one action appears to be FOR the media industry, it means you need to look a lot more closely.
In fact if you look you'll find that "Network Neutrality" was pushed for by the media industry, very happy to have a corporate backed government take full control over the wilds of the internet. Trump appointing people against network neutrality is continuing in the same vein of being very much against, not for, the media.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why is it bad to be able to pay more for higher speeds to some selected destinations? Overall your cable bill could be lower if you just need browsing speed for most sites but want to have a very fast connection for a handful of streaming video sites you use regularly...
That would actually make 4k streaming practical, for example.
You say that's bad, I say that's progress which is something we've not seen in a while. Under existing laws our network speeds are stagnating, Google is pulling out of fiber now...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We are building a better one. Without Your bullshit walled gardens. Without your ads. Without your monitoring. Without your grand regulations. Without your clumsy meddling. Without your consistent need to monetize every damn thing see. Without your little carrier fiefdoms and exclusive hardware monopolies. Without the insanely low barrier of entry that allowed all the dopey phone-addict people who cant think for themselves to flood in and cause exactly this.
You can eavesdrop on your army of buffoons while they try to puzzle out why "just reset the router" is not working anymore. Spy on them while they pay for the privilege of being watched by their allies and overlords while being incessantly attacked by everybody else.
The old guard looks cross about your new hotness bullshit. You've found a way to ass up a simple communications and data moving tool. While you argue over how best to fuck us all over, we may just take our ball and go home. Youtube can kiss my ass. Netflix can fuck itself, and all the ZOMG4KULTRASTREAM24/71000DOLLARTV zombies can have the lot of it.
I'll meet you in the "Unlicensed spectrum".
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
So killing net neutrality is not necessarily a bad thing if it's coupled with forcing local governments to allow competition in the last mile.
Tell the ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T etc) that all the regulations they dont like will go away but in return all the laws, agreements, regulations and other things all over the USA (at all levels of government) that restrict competition also have to go away.
They get to do whatever they want on their own networks but they dont get the right to prevent someone else from comming in and competing with them.
Here in Australia we have a competitive market for broadband in most parts of the country and because of that, very few (if any) ISPs do the kind of crap they do in the USA.
Uhhh the US taxpayers paid to the tune of 200 billion for a nationwide upgrade to our intertubes during Clinton and all we got for that money was a low res Goatse from the big corps.
This is why we should give them 90 days to either provide what we paid for, give us back every cent with interest, or we nationalize the whole thing and open it up to competition like we did when we first broke up Ma Bell. If they want exclusives in an area? Let them run 100mbps FIOS to the door and we'll be happy to give them a 15 years exclusivity deal but as it is now? They owe us a shitload of money and we should demand we get what we paid for!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
comparable to Kevin Costner evolving gills in water-world.
So you are the guy who actually watched it. People told me someone did, buit I didn't believe them.
He's draining the swamp - into his cabinet positions. Soon he'll employ all the lobbyists. After all, he has never said where to he's going to drain it.
There's an old saying in politics...nobody ever voted to repeal an entitlement. I don't disagree with what you are saying but I doubt the telcos would let that happen and it would take a miracle to get enough politicians to actually approve.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Incorrect, Trump kicked out all the lobbyists when he ditched Chris Christie.
He just appointed two lobbyists to the FCC Transition Team. Did you not read the summary?
President-elect Donald Trump has appointed two new advisers to his transition team that will oversee his FCC and telecommunications policy agenda. ... ...
[Jeff Eisenach] is an economist who has previously worked as a consultant for Verizon and its trade association.
[Mark Jamison] formerly worked on Sprint's lobbying team
I had a similar conversation with my friends. My belief is that the ruling class of America decided it's cheaper to pay people off with welfare than to give people jobs. Given the chance, I think most people will prefer meaningful work.
The very few getting comfortable on the bottom rungs of our social safety net are just there to obscure the masses of working poor who are below the safety net, do distract us from the real issues of why people can't find jobs.
Sure, there are plenty of minimum wage jobs available, but finding those jobs can be a challenge. Moving to a new place for a minimum wage job is also equally challenging.
Look who's lecturing us: YOUR country Brexited your asses into recession.
Yeah, and now old Farage is over there fucking up your shit. Well, tough, he's your problem now, we don't want him back.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It's like the Titanic captain arguing with the Chernobyl chief over who screwed the pooch the hardest.
Table-ized A.I.
I lost a bet over how a word was spailed.
Table-ized A.I.
Netflix offered to install a FREE CDN on all the ISP's networks that would have decreased their network traffic to the backbone by over 50% but they refused because they wanted Netflix to pay to get to their customers.
You mean, pay for peering, which Netflix didn't want to do?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>Which was caused by regulation stifling competition and allowing too much power to accumulate in the hands of large companies. That is what regulation is these days - primarily ways to keep smaller companies from competing.
No. No. No. Get it through your thick skulls. When there is massive large-scale fraud it's NEVER caused by too MUCH regulations- it's by defintion proof of too LITTLE regulation. Fraud on a massive scale proves that fraud was more profitable than honest business and unlikely to be prosecuted - and that is too LITTLE regulation.
If you had less, and somehow there was more competition this would have made NO difference ot the outcome, you would just have had a a bunch of small companies ALSO committing large scale fraud.
Competition can do a lot of things - but it can't make people not lie to get rich. The only thing that can do that is the threat of jail. If anything, competition tends to make liars become better liars.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It's only fraud if it's against the law. If we get rid of enough regulation then there won't be any fraud because there won't be any regulations to violate.
Then the magical little pixies of the free market will put sparkles and unicorn poop on everything.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Aah, I think I get it now... and of course the long-end result is that there is no crime at all, because there is nothing worth stealing because the second great depression starved us all to death.
So really - economic conservatism is just extreme hippy environmentalism on the installment plan !
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
So sewers, roads, education, water and all that should be in private hands, charging for use no doubt. Fuck off, there are plenty of things that should be in government hands being run to serve a purpose not a profit. Again, fuck off and try not to use any of the public infrastructure while you're doing it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
>1) Trump is not a monster
Almost every campaign promise and policy he promotes is monstrous. The few that aren't - like his position on trade deals - are the ones he is least likely to actually be able to implement. So only the monstrous ideas will happen because the GOP government has to give their president something, and they sure as hell won't give him opposition to trade deals that their funders benefit from !
>2) It's premature to judge before he takes office
Then why have elections at all ? Why have campaigns ?The whole point of campaigns is that it is NEVER premature to judge - the whole concept of democracy is that you are SUPPOSED to judge them BEFORE they take office.
>3) Clinton would arguably be as bad or worse. (Or better, or completely different, no one knows.)
Better. Good ? Doubt it. But better is guaranteed - because Clinton didn't suck up to white supremacists and wouldn't have given themsenior cabinet posts (we're up to quite a few now - the last is Jeff Sessions -a man so incredibly racist that a GOP senate refused to confirm him as a judge because they felt he was too biassed against minorities to be one). Clinton wouldn't have appointed a black panther into her cabinet either. She's a typical middle-of-the-road politician. That's objectively better than a crazy nutjob.
>4) He won fair and square
With a minority of the vote. Even so - democracy doesn't happen ONLY on election days. People have a right to protest, and the majority who rejected him have the right to protest - it's their only hope of tempering his rule so it doesn't destroy their lives. This is a very real risk for them. There are millions of people in America who are legitimately worried that he will repeal obamacare and they will lose their insurance and die when they can't afford the medications that keep them alive. There are millions of people legitimately worried that his court appointments will repeal Obergefell and their marriages will suddenly be invalid, they will lose their kids, their pensions their family tax rates - of possibly even face prosecution and jail time if Mike Pence gets his way.
People protested Obama based on claims of what he would do that was never anywhere in his platform, that he never supported or attempted. In Texas when the Army held excercises people all over panicked that it was 'preparation for martial law' - even the bloody governor sent the state guard to watch them to make sure they didn't do that... weird how they didn't do that when the army did exactly the SAME thing in the Bush years. That time then governor Rick Perry welcomed them.
These people now - they are protesting based on what the candidates actually promised to do. Their fears are legitimate because they didn't get pulled out of Roger Ailes's ass - but out of Trump's own fucking speeches. These people know what those policies would mean for them - and they are protesting in the hope of making it politically impossible for Trump to do those things.
That too - is how democracy works.
5) Nothing so far warrants armed revolt
Which is why there hasn't been any. But if Trump keeps just one of the worst of his promises - that WOULD justify armed revolt. Though, liberals tend to consider violence a last resort - we don't plan on using it as soon as we have an excuse (that's a republican gun nut thing). We'd try to get him impeached first, try to change his mind through protests and marches.
We'll only start using guns when those don't work - but history has it's share of cases where that was exactly what liberals have done. Remember Malcolm X ? The black panthers ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Somebody should tell them that in a real dog eat dog world ultimately only the fleas are happy.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You won't get much competition for the last mile even if you remove all the regulation. It's extremely expensive and companies won't invest because all they will get in return is a price war with the other network. There are a few exceptions like Google Fibre or cable where there was some other good reason to do it (forcing better speed/lower price access to their services, analogue TV) but as a general plan just removing restrictions won't help.
The only good options are state ownership of the last mile infrastructure or unbundling so that multiple ISPs have access and there are strong incentives to invest. The latter works well in Japan, my girlfriend has the cheapest most basic internet available out in the sticks and it's 2GB fibre for about $30/month.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This honestly sounds like the sort of thing you could goad Trump into promising on Twitter. This is your one big chance to directly influence policy before they take his Twitter account away again.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Fuck that... they'll steal the nails too.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
just don't give a fuck. 60 million voted for Trump, 120 million didn't bother voting.
After that everything else is just semantics. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that anyone of the people we just put in charge cares about ethics, principles or consistency. They care about results. End Justifies the Means. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; etc, etc. If something like Common Carrier gets in the way they'll just trample it.
This is the consequences of people either not voting or voting their gut.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
any ISP who intentionally tries to degrade Netflix service as a strategy to promote their own VOD service will simply be handing all their customers who use Netflix to a competitor.
No the problem is that if the ISP is big enough and has a large customer base then Netflix will have to pay the ISP to maintain the quality of service for those customers. The customers will never see any degrade on their pipe but what will happen is that Netflix will have to raise the price for everyone to pay these extortions fees.
"getting a free ride to consumer grade accounts"
What free ride? Content providers pay for their internet access.
If the ISP cannot price their offerings such that they are able to deal with the traffic, that is on them.
What you propose is nothing less than extortion ( "pay up for the packets... get slowed..." )
emt 377 emt 4
Allowing competition is not enough. Company A will take the North of the city and company B will take the south. They both raise their prices 300% and make more money than if they would have had the whole city.
What you need is to almost competition. No idea how that would work.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
its not about forcing local government to allow competition in the last mile.
that is isn't practical for the same reasons allowing competition in the last mile to your driveway isn't.
and its not about forcing government to allow competition.
rather, its about allowing (or having rather) government force competition on the ISPs.
IE, if you go that route, the best solution is to instead force (by regulation) competition in the last mile by saying "you (the ISP) don't own the last mile."
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If you're talking about services, yes. If you're talking about infrastructure no.
I live in an area where there there are two cable companies (Wide Open West and Time Warner). There is no reason there couldn't be a 3rd except for the fact that no one thinks it's a good investment to run another series of cables throughout my neighborhood.
Decouple service from infrastructure and you will get all the competition you want.
I am 100% pro-NN, but I am willing to consider that I could be misinformed. My premise is that without NN large monopolies will build walled gardens and will make it cost-prohibitive to venture outside of these.
Aah, I think I get it now... and of course the long-end result is that there is no crime at all, because there is nothing worth stealing because the second great depression starved us all to death.
No, the end result is nothing big corporations do in the pursuit of aggregating wealth for the select few is a crime. The little people still need to have crimes otherwise they might do things to not pay money to the big companies.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'd call that the mid-level point - and mine what comes after that.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Not for long though. Low-skilled humans are being surpassed by machinery at a fast rate. Self-checkouts, self-driving cars, automated warehousing, automated electronic invoicing, etc etc The Era oif the lowly educated but well paid worker is fast coming to an end. Sure, the automation also creates some jobs, but the further into the future we go, the less and less jobs there will be for people with little to no education simply because they will rarely provide any benefit to having a machine do the same job.
This is why not just America, but all of the industrialized world needs to start re-.inventing the social safety nets and considering something like basic income, because all projections currently point to the amount of unemployment only growing in th future decades. Achieving high employment rate in an environment were humans are unnecessary as factors of production in many fields is not possible.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
This is simple. They are ether common carriers or they are not.
That is the very definition of a false dilemma. Sorry but this is unfortunately not a simple either/or with no third options. Our government could classify these companies in any number of ways and regulate them (or not) accordingly. You've mentioned two of the options but there are plenty more possibilities.
Please tell us how higher costs, lower speeds, less competition, and blocked/gated content will make america great again.
It will make it great for rich asshats like Trump and his buddies. Weren't you paying attention?
Donald Trump may be an arrogant bastard who thinks of attractive women as trophies to fondle, but he's not Anti-Christ-Hitler-Stalin-Pol-Pot.
No, those are the people he's appointing as his chief advisors and to head federal agencies. He's appointing people who deny science to head the EPA. His chief advisor is a known right fringe racist. His VP thinks women are subhumans who should surrender any reproductive rights, is anti-LGBT, is a climate change skeptic, etc. Basically he's hiring a bunch of fringe lunatics who he's going to put in positions of real power.
The fringe right also said a lot of idiotic things when Obama was elected
They ALWAYS say a lot of idiotic things. The difference is that now they have access to actual power and can act on some of those idiotic things.
In truth, very little can be done to significantly change things without Congress' approval (you know, that "balance of powers" thing), and the Republicans have a *very* slim majority in the Senate.
Trump's party has majorities in both houses and there is a very good chance he'll be able to appoint some members of the Supreme Court. There is very little preventing him from doing a whole bunch of really bad things.
A year from now, when the country hasn't actually imploded, all this angst is going to look a bit silly in retrospect.
Maybe but there is scant evidence that Trump and his cronies aren't going to do a lot of damage to a lot of people in the mean time. He's more or less promised to do a lot of cartoon villainy. I see no reason to not take him at his word that he will try to actually do the awful things he has promised.
Ah yes, what a glorious future it will be when 90 % of current low to minimum skill jobs are entirely automated and quite a large chunk of normal office jobs as well. Have you not followed the projections on the effects of technology to employment: there is no way there will be jobs for everyone in the future in industrialized nations, because pretty soon we'll reach a point in which a low-skill human is simply inferior/less efficient in most jobs compared to a machine. Do some actual reading::
And that's just the estimate for the next couple of decades, the nu,ber will only increase as time goes on. Once we hit AI it will effectively make all human labor pretty much obsolete.
So where does this saving come from where the chances are that there simply isn't work available for a majority of non/low-educated individuals in a couple devades? How do they save when they have no marketable skills, and in your vision of plutocratic america I assume getting an education that would offer the a slightly better (but not guaranteed) employment also costs a fuckton of money?
Ah, so in your vision of an idela society most people who aren't born into a wealthy family simply die off unless some rich asshole manages to have some pity for them. What a place to live in, truly.
I live in a modern social-democratic country (Finland) in which my tax money is used to fund the education, health care and other basic needs of my fellow citizens. I don't consider this oppression in the least, and I fail to see why anyone sane would. I mean, firstly, the wealthy individuals who run companies here are only able to do so because they enjoy a population of highly educated, healthy individuals and a stable infrastructure. Without these things commerce itself would be impossible, so it makes complete sense, from a both indvidual as well as corporate perspective, to rpvide such base level fundamental services with tax-funds. There's nothing oppressive about societies pooling resources and collectively funding essential services, that's the very reason societies are born in the first place and we don't live in a state of anarchy.
Ah yes, the age old 'b-b-b-but the soviet union was horrible' card which conveniently ignores the last half a century of development in northern and western Europe in which socialism is implemented entirely differently from the soviet union and has by all possible metrics achieved vastly superior results.
Have you ever been to the Norodic countries? Germany? France?
Yeah, we aren't exactly living in the soviet union here you doofus, and just because countries like the USSR and others have managed to fuck up socialistic ideals by turning into tyranies doesn't mean that the only feasible way forward is some weird ancap plutocracy in which you have no social mobility whatsoever unless you suck enough rich CEO dick to make them fund your education/living..
Is that really your vision of an ideal society in an age when we're nearing the end of humans as the main factors of production? Because unless you're someone with a doctora
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
People who make arguments like that point to the early century dictatorships like Germany or Italy, without considering that neither of those countries had any real democratic tradition, like the US has had for two centuries with our republic.
Ask some black people how well that has worked out for them for most of our history. How about the Japanese American citizens during WWII? Just because we have a tradition of democracy doesn't mean our leaders can't do a bunch of really awful things to a lot of people.
The Republican establishment loathes Trump.
So what? Trump has promised to give them a lot of what they want and as long as he does they will swallow their distaste and get on with doing whatever cartoon villainy they intended. They're promising to take away health insurance from millions, they are promising to restrict reproductive rights of women, they are promising to restrict the rights of workers to organize, they are promising to increase an already outrageously oversize military and surveillance state, they are promising to deport millions of people. Trump agrees with them on all of that. Hard to see where there is going to be any real friction.
A CDN inside your network SAVES you money by allowing you to use bandwidth that would have been spent streaming the content from the source to your customer on other content. In the case of Netflix it would have saved you A LOT of money. So yes I don't think Netflix was unreasonable in thinking "Hey we're asking to do this FOR you and our mutual customers for free and you want to CHARGE us to save you money and give your customers a better experience?" The ISP's in question have an extreme conflict of interest because they want you to buy their inflated VOD services instead of using Netflix. They also oversell their service such that if all their customers were to use the bandwidth they pay for at the same time it would cripple their network and even if it didn't their peering connection to the backbone is already saturated with less than half the traffic they sold. These blogs over at Level 3 are very enlightening.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
You mean like a CDN? ISP's have been playing games with content providers and backbone internet companies for years. Netflix offered to install a FREE CDN on all the ISP's networks that would have decreased their network traffic to the backbone by over 50% but they refused because they wanted Netflix to pay to get to their customers. Ultimately Netflix caved and paid the toll and raised their rates to compensate. Net Neutrality would make this type of extortion illegal. Right now AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, et al own the last mile AND competing VOD services. This is a complete conflict of interest.
Actually it was far more devious than simply refusing the CDN's. The ISP's were purposely not upgrading the Interconnects and Edge Routers connecting to Level 3 (a Tier 1 network) which provided the bandwidth to Netflix resulting in avoidable traffic congestion between large ISP customers and Netflix servers. Netflix actually went as far as offering to pay for the infrastructure upgrades but the ISP's wanted much more from Netflix than a couple of new Routers. Netflix eventually caved. Well this was back when Netflix actually had its own equipment in Data-Centers. Last year Netflix completed is move to AWS (Amazon Web Services). I don't know what kind of agreements AWS has with the large ISP's
Ok maybe I'm dense but I would think net neutrality is the opposite of "crony capitalism pure and simple."
So, instead of afressing any of the problems I pointed out in your propsed model taking into consideration that the possibilities for employment will be highly reduced in advanced economies in the coming decades, you ignore all the facts and just choose to keep on with the nonsensical strawman of ''oppression'. The guys behind Supercell (the makes of the Clash of Clans hit and recent billionaires) voluntarily paid their taxes into Finland because they said they consider the system here to be the primary reason for their success, so this oppression angle is just bullshit.
Solid, very solid. How do you expect anyone to take your ideas even vaguely seriously when you cannot even mount an argument to defend them when problems are pointed out?
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
So you are saying: somebody paid *capital gains taxes* here for some bizarre reasons and this means that businesses will keep paying income, payroll, property and other oppressive taxes here as well in coming years rather than moving away or failing due to becoming uncompetitive in the global economy?
Hmm, I think you don't understand the difference between running a company and cashing out of one.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
No, I'm saying they helkd a god damn press release in which they stated they inted to both keep their headquarters located in Helsinki and keep paying both theior personal taxes and corporate taxes here because they want to support the society without which they wouldn't have had the chance to become so successful
And again, please explain how your model intends to account for the disappearance of jobs en mass due to automation. Because people will need higher education in the future even more than they do today but it will not guarantee them employment.
So are you really saying that the 98 % of society that isn't extremely wealthy just has to first take massive debt to even be able to compete in the for the few jobs that will remain, and the rest that do not get either employment or education - ie. probably over half the population in 3-4 decades) will have to just hope for donations from the elite class or die?
What? If you take any form of income away from that amount of people,m do you understand what that will do the corporations when they'll lose a significant chunk of consumers, let alone for societal stability overall etc...
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Ok, so a company holds a press release to make themselves look like something they may or may not be. AFAIC press releases like that are usually some form of a stunt or maybe a backroom deal with a politician for additional tax breaks (which would make sense for them if they can do that deal). They are not successful in Finland because it is Finland, they are successful because they did something and people can do something useful anywhere. They owe nothing to Finland specifically whether they understand it or not and if they have customers and employees and investors they have already *given more than anything that government can steal from them in form of income and other taxes*.
Yes, companies give something to the society before they are taxed one penny, they are giving a valuable service, opportunities for investment and possibly for employment. They shouldn't be taxed at all actually, but they are, so eventually they will come around or they will be dismissed - outcompeted.
And again, please explain how your model intends to account for the disappearance of jobs en mass due to automation.
- labour and capital are always in competition, government oppression makes labour artificially more expensive, thus providing more incentives for automation that exist otherwise.
There shouldn't be any government involvement in any business whatsoever, this would ensure an actual balance between cost reducing automation and between labour prices. It is all about supply and demand, supply and demand always meet somewhere and the market clears.
Government oppression artificially raising the price destroys the point of balance where supply and demand naturally meet and then you get more automation that would exist otherwise thus increasing unemployment via government oppression.
So are you really saying that the 98 % of society that isn't extremely wealthy just has to first take massive debt
- government involvement in education and loan guarantees is the reason for the massive amounts of useless debt that recent graduates have. The loan guarantees and all other forms of government intervention is what artificially raises tuition prices by flooding the market with more money than it would otherwise have.
Thus the artificial demand allows the suppliers to raise prices to create wrong price points, similar to the wrong price points for labour that government creates with all the business related laws, minimum wage, etc.
People start businesses when they can afford it, governments make starting businesses unaffordable for many reasons: money printing, laws, taxes, etc. Without government oppression there would be more businesses starting and new businesses do not automate as much as the established ones and not at first anyway. The prices for products fall in a free market capitalist system, providing more products and choices for less money. Students don't need debt to finish college if government does not artificially modify the equation and create imbalances in supply/demand by pumping money into the system.
As to 'taking any form of income away from people' - income through oppression? Income through income taxes? You think you can have a system that will promote welfare through oppression and not destroy jobs and move businesses elsewhere? Well, for that you would need a single employer in the country, the government itself, we already had that back in the USSR. Like I said, I don't want anything to do with Finland, I am disgusted by every thing collective.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
That's your opinion, not theirs, and certainly not mine. As someone currently running a tech-startup myslef I see things very differently, but this is a minor point in this discussion so I'll leave that be and move on to the more important matter, which is that you are still dodging the issue.
This is a total non-sequitur. In the mid-to-long term automation will surpass human workers with or without government 'oppression' (still the wrong word but whatever) because machines are more cost-effective at these jobs. It's simply not possible for a human worker to do for example invoicing or bookkeeping or any repetitive and simple jobs for faster and as well or better than a machine that can handle thousands of transactions in seconds and do so with considerably lower margins of error than a human being.
Even if I grant you to be correct for the sake of argument that government involvement is making this process faster, the overall advancements of technology which are happening and will keep happening mean that jobs requiring only little or no education will eventually be made obsolete by machines, as the technological advancements cannot be stopped barring a major planetary catastrophe.
Simply put, humans are incapable at competing effectively with machines when it comes to information processing, which means we're not in the same market as the machines from the point of view of the corporations. Machines and humans are not equal or equally effective as workers, which is why your supply and demand analogy fails and fails massively.
Again, I know from personal experience having been a part of the process that what now takes around 20 people to run invoice will soon be ran with machines and 3-5 people. This is cheaper and more effective. So please, stop deluding yourself into thinking that slow, error-prone humans are capable of competing with something that does the exactly same job faster, tirelessly and with a lower rate of error. The cost/benefit ratio of an automated system, even if the 20 people were paid HALF of what they used to be paid would still vastly be better. There is no price point at which the labor of these individuals is competitive with a system that has an entirely predictable output rate and a fixed - and relatively low (compared to operating profit) . cost. Machines work 24/7, don't take sick leave, don't complain etc. Once a system like that is set up and working (and like I said, these are not that expensive these days) there's no reason for any company to hire those 20 people at even a dollar per hour wage because the machine is simply a better investment value-wise.
There is no way for human individuals to compete with machines because of this in the long term.
As for education, firstly: bullshit. Education per student is cheaper in western countries where it is provided as public service instead of as a for-profit commodity. It's the combination of private, for-profit universities and private but government backed loans that's making it so ridiculously expensive in the US. When education is a necessity to be able to enter the labor market, it makes no sense to force people into debt just so they can even apply for a job.
But more importantly I was asking what do you imagine the situation to be in your 'ideal' future when, even if one takes debt, there's absolutely no guarantee that you'll get employed because a larger amount of people will be competing for a smaller amount of jobs, meaning the 'investment' one makes into privately acquired education is incredibly risk and has even more of a chance of ruining your life entirely if you don't get a job but are left with the debt and no means to pay it.
So really, what are the options for somebody born into
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
About your sig? Sorry but sadly SJWs are very very real and while its true the world would be MUCH better off if we could just line them up and have them all shot (which would probably please them as most are beta whites and thus you would have less "white privilege" in the world) we can at least take comfort in the fact that being betas most of them will not get the opportunity to breed and thus will die out.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Except is wasn't peering, because the traffic didn't transit those networks. It was requested by endpoints *in* those networks.
Comcast already got paid to move those bits by their own customers. The fact that lots of customer bits just happened to be coming from one place doesn't mean that Comcast should get to gouge the provider of those bits.
You are not actually hearing me, I said this already: *supply and demand always meet somewhere and the market clears.*
The market clears. The market clears given a natural balance between supply and demand. 100,000,000 unemployed individuals means 200,000,000 pairs of hands, 200,000,000 pairs of eyes and of legs that could be employed doing something if the market was allowed to clear.
Yes, automation is coming. I personally am responsible for over 9000 low skilled jobs that were automated away in a check processing facility for example. A few dozen jobs that my systems automated away for a retailer (actually they just didn't have to hire a bunch of new people as their throughput grew). Potentially thousands of truck dispatcher/planner jobs that I am working on automating today.
As these jobs go away, the goods are becoming more competitive. The government is responsible for inflation (money printing through machinations with the Treasury and the Fed and other central banks) thus preventing quite a large price drop that would have happened in a free market, other than that all of this automation forces prices down.
The people that are automated away are a pool of new potential hires also at lower prices (and they should be at lower prices after their current jobs are automated away) and in a free market there would be demand for these people at lower prices by companies that do not have automation.
You are of an opinion that every job will be automated, I am of an opinion that in a free market the market clears given the natural discovery of prices. Supply and demand meet and the markets clear, the prices for people fall and they are again competitive against automation. But this does not work in an oppressive regime set up by the mobs through the violence of the State.
The falling prices for goods and services would still provide a better quality of life to people who need less money to get that quality. But of-course we are not allowed to have actual free market with all this oppression, so in the system that we have today you will have your hundreds of millions of unemployed people roaming around, who believe that the system must provide for them.
You have an untenable goal: to provide hundreds of millions of jobless individuals with a quality of life that their politicians promised them at the expense of the oppressed individuals and companies and you believe that these individuals and companies will not leave and go to markets that are much less oppressed? Interesting.
My position is that your collectivism is oppression and it leads to this misery in the long run because that's the only outcome of oppression: misery. The free market gives us more choices of cheaper products, the oppression gives us a promise of an entitlement at somebody else's expense. I think there is an incompatibility in terms there and it will not work itself nicely for the benefit of the oppressors.
I run a software firm with a number of offices, one of them is in the Ukraine where I have most of my development team and that's because it is mutually beneficial for all of us, for me with lower prices and for them with higher earnings and thus with higher standard of living than most other people there. I don't want to hire in places where it is so much more expensive due to taxes, laws, lawsuits, regulations, basically due to the State oppressing me. My clients are other businesses, who in turn get a cheaper product/service from me than from others, some of who have local developers. Who do you think can provide a cheaper service, the local developers or outsourced ones (given approximately the same quality)?
My point is that oppression doesn't work in the long run but countries like yours (and my country of birth) wouldn't have any of that freedom that people like me demand, so we will not see eye to eye but I am pretty sure about the final outcome.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
You are of an opinion that every job will be automated
Yes, in the long term, because as long as we keep improving the information processing of our technology, eventually we're going to reach a point wherein the machines are as intelligent as humans at which point they can essentially take over all jobs and do them faster and better than humans.
This is flatout wrong. I tried to explain to you but I'll try again. If you look at the example of automated invoicing for example, a machine automates away the need for 15 extra people. The automated systems are capable of doing so much work so muuch more efficiently that it's not possible for human workers to compete with these systems. Automated systems are low cost already and they're vastly more skilled/efficient than even an experienced human employee, so trying to match the automated systems in cost/benefit is not feasible even in the relatively short term really, let alone the long term.
The goal is not untenable. Developed economies already provide this standard of living for people. As production gets more efficient due to humans being taken out of the production loop the economies become more efficient so its not like production goes down. The economies can still produce everything they produce now and more, they just dont need anywhere close the amount of humans in the production. So should the standard of living in western economies collapse just because even though we still have equal production capabilities and material wealth, we no longer need to burden human workers?
This will eventually be the case for the whole world, as the standard of living rises even in the developing world and automating jobs becomes cheaper and cheaper as these systems become more commonplace. Eventually automated systems will be cheaper than even the quasi-slave labor in countries like China, and in fact automation of production facilities in China is already underway in many places because they're able to do the math and see that even though the initial investment can be huge, the long term benefit for the companies is already visible even compared to labor priced at 3 dollars a day.
If the companies leave and produce everything elsewhere either by outsourcing or automation, they will kill off the market they want to sell to. They need people and companies to buy their product, but without income (which people will not be able to get because, as explained above, in the long term human labor CANNOT compete with automation) these people cannot buy products and thus the consumer companies especially will lose their income from these markets and essentially destroy themselves,
So in the long term either the taxes are raised to fund something like UBI make sure people can have a money to acquire goods from the companies and keep the profit motive alive, or the taxes are not raised and the majority of the companies will collapse as there'll be no paying customers to create any demand for the goods and services they provide.
And when the point arrives that automated systems themselves can do most or all of the development (which is not that far off, as you should know if you're following what's happening) the outsourcing will become inefficient even compared to african dirt-poor development.
There is no way around this: human labor/outsourcing will be able to compete with some of the automated systems for
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
He's not "bringing back" coal, coal cannot be dispensed with overnight as there are a lot of coal plants. He is trying to fuel them as efficiently as possible
Except he said he was going to bring back all those coal jobs, but "fueling them as efficiently as possible" will mean more automation, which means fewer jobs in an industry that already in terminal decline. Tough luck, all you people in coal country who voted for him. Now you're out of a job, AND probably your healthcare, AND there's no money for education or retraining.
Because they seem to be laughing at those who try. Is there ay evidence they are doing so?
Who's laughing?
It's mis-intrepreations of those promises.
Haha, give me a break. "No, he really didn't mean those things he said in plain English. What he really meant was..."
What we oppose is people not even bother climbing high enough to need a net, but stopping at the net and getting comfortable
Yeah, because poor people are really living it up on welfare.
I could be wrong, but I get the feeling you're one of those people who haven't set foot outside of white upper-middle class suburbia.
Net Neutrality also prevents internet providers from providing 'un-metered' streaming from video services.
ehh, for video distribution, I can see cost savings in having a data center several miles away from the house. I would prefer unlimited, unfiltered local data, and limited and restricted long distance data. But, most people don't seem willing to make a big hassle over ~$30/month for cable & internet.
Wow. I might kill for a price like that, although I'd demand a no-tv discount. $50/month for 60/5 Mb/s internet-only from the only cable supplier, Charter. AT&T is worse, but even if they were cheaper I'd open a vein in a warm bath before I'd go back to AT&T.