Slashdot Mirror
Bill That Would Restore Net Neutrality Moves Forward Despite Telecom's Best Efforts To Kill It (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Last month, Democrats introduced a simple three page bill that would do one thing: restore FCC net neutrality rules and the agency's authority over ISPs, both stripped away by a hugely-controversial decision by the agency in late 2017. Tuesday morning, the Save the Internet Act passed through a key House committee vote and markup session -- despite some last-minute efforts by big telecom to weaken the bill.
"Net neutrality is coming back with a vengeance," said Evan Greer, deputy director of consumer group Fight for the Future said in a statement. "Politicians are slowly learning that they can't get away with shilling for big telecom anymore," Greer said. "We're harnessing the power of the Internet to save it, and any lawmaker who stands in our way will soon face the wrath of their constituents, who overwhelmingly want lawmakers to restore these basic protections." Greer told Motherboard that several last minute amendments were introduced by lawmakers during the markup period in an attempt to water down the bill, but all were pulled in the wake of widespread public interest in the hearing. "It seems like the GOP retreated a bit given after the huge swell of public support," said Greer, who told Motherboard that 300,000 people watched the organization's livestream of the markup process. That attention "really emboldened the Democrats and shored up the ones that were wobbling," Greer said.
"Net neutrality is coming back with a vengeance," said Evan Greer, deputy director of consumer group Fight for the Future said in a statement. "Politicians are slowly learning that they can't get away with shilling for big telecom anymore," Greer said. "We're harnessing the power of the Internet to save it, and any lawmaker who stands in our way will soon face the wrath of their constituents, who overwhelmingly want lawmakers to restore these basic protections." Greer told Motherboard that several last minute amendments were introduced by lawmakers during the markup period in an attempt to water down the bill, but all were pulled in the wake of widespread public interest in the hearing. "It seems like the GOP retreated a bit given after the huge swell of public support," said Greer, who told Motherboard that 300,000 people watched the organization's livestream of the markup process. That attention "really emboldened the Democrats and shored up the ones that were wobbling," Greer said.
You seem to be proposing the novel idea that competition is possible in the current climate, or am I mistaken?
You are aware that it's not legally permissible to actually compete with the current monopolists as things stand, right?
The only difference with Net Neutrality is that the monopolists can't screw us on a per domain basis.
The game is over, they won. The only question now is WHAT they won.
There's 2 seperate problems here;
The first is allowing content distribution companies aka publishers to also own and create content on a massive scale and in turn, dictate the discussion in a democracy. We know historically how disasterous it is to eliminate the ability of a body politic to discuss their differences and figure out how to manage the economic and political system; its the whole reason we have the freedom of speech.
The second is a bigger issue with local pay 2 play franchising agreements; ISP's pay government, government grants monopolies, ISP's charge whatever they want. The fundemental engineering problem there is implimenting public wireway that anyone can pay the local government to use which is a difficult endeavour to solve because the realization is we need to seperate data as its own utility from other utility services' infrastructure. We used to have that when POTS networks were a thing; we've since replaced those POTS networks with Coaxial cable networks (still copper) and Cellular networks both of which present new engineering problems that the market has shown itself unable and unwilling to solve. States are attempting to retire their POTS cable and are finding out 911 emergency service goes away with it which is literally what keeps roving violent gangs from rampaging the countryside.
Net Neutrality is one way of approaching the problem and a step in the right direction towards preserving a functioning economy and country. However until you begin breaking up media organizations and begin seperating publishers from content producers, you won't have a workable solution.
I would further point out the issue with robocalls.
Telecoms are quite capable of clamping this down with an iron fist, but don't. There's overwhelming demand for that clampdown to happen, but --- somehow --- the telecoms just won't self-regulate like GP insists is possible.
It's almost like the proposed methodology just does not work in the real world or something.... /s
The average person blathering on about 'BUT MUH BANDWIDTH!' has no clue about the problems, its no wonder that various ISP want to be able to negotiate with the massive companies putting completely unrestricted traffic on their networks, now they are going to be hit with 4K game streaming on top of Youtube and Netflix and all the spam etc.
I want some version of NN too but not the short sighted heavy handed restrictive version that was imposed previously.
Its only the biggest companies putting massive traffic on the network that benefit from NN, not any users.
There's no need for 4k streaming of anything, IMO.
However, there *IS* a need for telecoms to stop hoarding their profits to make investors shit rainbows, and instead actually improve their networks. I wont hold my breath for that though.
on the plus side this puts the Republicans on record as opposing Net Neutrality.
And make no mistake, this is a partisan issue. The last time it came up for a vote it was split completely along party lines (IIRC one or two Repubs broke ranks, but not enough).
What this means is that if you want NN, you have to vote for a Democrat, or at least an Independent. And they have to win both chambers and probably the presidency to.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure it's a minor issue for even a lot of the folks on this forum; and whatever the GOP is selling outweighs the value of NN.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I have a general net neutrality question.
Consider that 1000 of my local ISP's customers want to watch a hot new Netflix show. My ISP is 1000 km from the nearest Netflix data center. The dumb solution is that 1000 customers sent requests to ISP who sends them 1000 km to Netflix who sends the show 1000 times over the backbone connection. The smart solution is that Netflix colocates a server in my ISP's small local data center which they send the popular shows to just once over the backbone, and this server sends it to the 1000 local customers.
For the smart solution to happen, there have to be incentives for Netflix and the ISP to do it. Without net neutrality, it could work: ISP gets to advertise that Netflix is 0 rated (or 0.5 rated or whatever) towards customer data caps, and benefits from being more attractive to customers and not paying for so much backbone data. Netflix benefits by not needing so much internet backbone. Customers benefit obviously, at least in the short term. (Customers may suffer in the long term through lack of competition.) Would-be Netflix competitors are very unhappy. Possibly money changes hands between ISP and Netflix to make this work, although I'm not sure in which direction.
With net neutrality, the ISP can't offer reduced rating on Netflix data. How do the incentives work in this case? The great reduction of data going over the backbone should provide savings, but who was paying this cost in the first place? Does the ISP want to pay Netflix to colocate a server, or to charge them for it?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Why would you think such blatant disinformation would succeed here? Do you really think so little of people?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It'll die in the Senate, on the plus side this puts the Republicans on record as opposing Net Neutrality.
Exactly... and that's the point.
they have to win both chambers and probably the presidency to.
2020 is coming along with another blue wave.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure it's a minor issue for even a lot of the folks on this forum; and whatever the GOP is selling outweighs the value of NN.
Fear, hate and tax cuts for the rich is what they are selling. However, they changed the intensity from being subliminal and liminal to being superliminal which has had diminishing returns.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Welcome back to your copper insulated wireline that 100% NN ready and federally approved.
Yep pretty much. They could have written a clean NN bill that addresses competition.
What they elected to do instead was continue POTS era Title II bullshit with an insane number of administrative forbearances that can be dissolved at any time by the whim of technocrats.
Everyone who is cheerleading for this bill enjoy regressive Internet USF taxes coming to an account statement near you.
Democrats blew the best opportunity we've ever had to get constructive NN passed.
From a purely technical standpoint, resource neutrality is undesirable. The market solution to Net Neutrality is to have more ISP competition. Honestly, I would go back to slow and reliable DSL if AT&T didn't keep raising the price. Someone other provider should be able to come in and offer old school DSL for $20/month. Cable isn't as reliable, but it's faster and cheaper. And, I think they just got around to laying fiber for my neighborhood, but it's probably a single provider.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
What this means is that if you want NN, you have to vote for a Democrat, or at least an Independent. And they have to win both chambers and probably the presidency to.
Or, you could, you know, engage your representative and senator (R/D/wutevr), and express your point of view in a clear, reasoned manner. Believe it or not, they do listen to your calls and read your letters/emails (at least someone on their staff does. There is a populist movement on both sides of the aisle and the incumbents better pay attention to it, or they will be looking for a new job.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Democrats blew the best opportunity we've ever had to get constructive NN passed.
Oh sweetheart, it's been a concerted effort on both sides. Democrats understand that a clean rewrite would suck resources their staffer can't provide and lobbyist won't pay for. Republicans ensured that independent consultation won't happen this lifetime. And do you think the FCC is willing to testify in commitee on this topic honestly? So unless come 2020 we elect bona fide IT folk into Congress (and I highly don't recommend that), a clean rewrite won't happen.
New legislation doesn't happen on timescales of less than a decade without some sort of outside of Congress input that's paid to specialize within the topic's domain. So we sure can do it the committee way and have something fresh and new to replace dated Title II, oh by 2028-ish. However, critters in Congress have reelections that happen on shorter than that timescales. So, I guess we're stuck for the time being with shit Title II or nothing. But let's not forget that Congress has acted in a unified matter to increase the level of nothingness they do on a daily basis.
Telecoms are quite capable of clamping this down with an iron fist, but don't. There's overwhelming demand for that clampdown to happen, but --- somehow --- the telecoms just won't self-regulate like GP insists is possible.
I suspect that you don't have much experience in telecoms. CallerID need to be settable by the calling end. This has been explained on Slashdot many times so your argument is weak. Just do your own research on why this need to be and you will easily find.
What we would really need is some kind of tracebility/digital signature of the calling end spoofing the CallerID.
Unfortunately, I am not aware of such provision in SIP or other protocols right now although somebody might already be working on this.
If nobody is currently working on this, why don't you volunteer?
Cheers,
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
NN isn't about the consumer, it's about who pays.
This is an oxymoron. The consumer ultimately is footing the bill for everything one way or another.
Welcome back to your copper insulated wireline that 100% NN ready and federally approved.
Welcome back to your one federal NN approved monopoly telco.
No more new competition. No new community broadband. No network innovation allowed.
Federal rules and laws protecting monopoly networks all the way down to the modem.
Nothing new for your gated community. Nothing better for your gentrified neighborhood.
Want community broadband? The exisiting NN approved network is the only network allowed.
Federal laws and rules slowing your internet since 2019?
Restoring slow gov approved networks all over the USA. No more new network freedom.
You really don't have the first clue about what the Net Neutrality rules did and did not do prior to December 14, 2017, do you? All this new bill does is reverse the Ajit Pai FCC fuckery from December, 2017 and sets it back to the way it was before that. Do you recall the Internet being slow before 2017? Do you really believe there was no network innovation before December 2017?
You really are a stupid sonofabitch, you know that?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nobody in real life cares about what people call Net Neutrality.
In reality, NN is about corporations trying to force other corporations to pay for infrastructure and access. Everything else is just a sideshow, and it's pathetic how so-called geeks have gotten suckered into taking sides in this fight.
NN isn't about the consumer, it's about who pays.
Believe you me, people in real life care about the inflated bill for crappy internet service from their local telecommunications monopoly and they are pissed off about the crappy service so they care about what people call Net Neutrality even if they might call the lack of it price gouging and crappy service.
Network neutrality says nothing about the underlying tech.
This should be true but isn't. The vehicle democrats are using to impose it (Title II) sure has a heck of a lot to say about a whole lot of unrelated things.
If the big telco's don't want to build the infrastructure if they can't screw everyone over then fuck em.
The problem is government regulation is actively being used to reinforce large monopolies. Examples include spectrum policy favoring large providers and pole attachment rights.
Democrats blew the best opportunity we've ever had to get constructive NN passed.
The probability of this bill passing the senate and being signed into law by Donald Trump is precisely 0%.
It is a political stunt for the sole purpose of framing the issue for the 2020 election.
The actual content of the bill is completely irrelevant.
The market solution to insufficient competition is, in theory, more competition. When there's not enough competition, we have a market failure, and regulators should step in, in this case with Net Neutrality.
Consider that 1000 of my local ISP's customers want to watch a hot new Netflix show. My ISP is 1000 km from the nearest Netflix data center. The dumb solution is that 1000 customers sent requests to ISP who sends them 1000 km to Netflix who sends the show 1000 times over the backbone connection.
One word: Multicast.
It's already in the Internet suite.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
How many more decades of federal gov monopoly NN wireline speeds will that "regulators should step in" support?
When a telco monopoly uses federal NN rules to keep out new innovative networks?
Open the networks up to new ISP. Let a community create its own community broadband free from federal rules and laws.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re AC and the "Once again, network neutrality says nothing about the underlying tech."
Will every community in the US be free to build their own community broadband an invite in on innovative and fast ISP?
Will only the existing monopoly wireline be able to prove to the US gov that it is NN ready ISP and is the only regulated ISP allowed to connect?
AC federal NN rules are what keep new networks and new innovative service out of communities all around the USA.
Time for some community broadband with new trenches and community fiber-optic.
Connect when needed and all is ready in the community. Not more wireline and modem speeds set and protected under decades of federal rules and laws AC.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Shitting rainbows is fun. Nobody is going to pass up an opportunity to shit rainbows. Not even to save the world, or "restore" net neutrality or something something.
In my State everybody has pole attachment rights. If I buy a house in the mountains, and I want to run a private fiber run, it costs something like $30k/mile. But none of that is for attachment rights, it is only to have the work done by a licensed contractor.
Don't let companies own the poles. That is as stupid as letting companies own streets.
i cant wait until they figure out they cant get away with shilling for the military-industrial complex and the banking cartel
this is just plain old crony-fascism when the government offers their services to the highest bidder
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
You are correct indeed, that's what I do too with some variation and I seldom get robocalls, say 1 a month on average and that's from direct lines that don't have to go through an IVR before ringing whichever device are close to me.
I don't use any apps although, I control this at the voip switch and most of my cell/copper line calls are routed through it in some way.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
NN is about removing extortion.
Netflix pays their ISP for their connection, I pay mine for mine. That's all there has to be. There's no reason for my ISP to care about Netflix, because whatever are the costs of my usage of Netflix should be covered by the money I pay.
The answer you are looking for is SHAKEN/STIR, it's currently being implemented by major carriers.
The regulators have been taken hostage by lobbyists who successfully hijack state law to ban local competition.
One case where the feds *should* invoke interstate commerce to protect competition.
Republicans:
We can't trust the Government to control X effectively for the people. The power should be with the Businesses!
Democrats:
We can't trust the Businesses to control X effectively for the people. The power should be with the Government!
"There's no need for 4k streaming of anything, IMO."
High-def microscopic research done remotely?
I mean, I was doing that a DECADE ago.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yeah so you sign up for the lower tier service, what does that have to do with NN or subsidizing higher tier service?
Last month, Democrats introduced a simple three page bill that would do one thing: restore FCC net neutrality rules and the agency's authority over ISPs, both stripped away by a hugely-controversial decision by the agency in late 2017. Tuesday morning, the Save the Internet Act passed through a key House committee vote and markup session -- despite some last-minute efforts by big telecom to weaken the bill.
Serious questions. What has been the overall impact since late 2017 when the FCC removed the rules? Are websites now inaccessible that once were accessible? Have upload & download speeds been reduced? Have costs skyrocketed? Is there any noticeable change that anyone can point to?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Having seen what the 'open for all' internet looks like, before the ability of telecom/ISP companies to effectively manage the impact of bad actors, the idea that people, in their ignorance, actually believe such nonsense as 'every packet is equal' is disturbing. This version of 'net neutrality' does not protect end users. read the thing. read ALL of it. For every headline in the regs that says 'protect end user privilege', there are 8-30 exceptions that essentially allow an ISP/Telco to do exactly what people claim they do not want to allow them to do. Don't want to be charged 'extra' for access to netflix? No problem, says FCC/ISP: You now have a bandwidth cap per month, and once you go over it, we charge you extra... unless you use our streaming service, which is zero rated (I.E. doesn't count against your bandwidth cap). The entire regulatory framework is filled with that kind of crap. And the best part? the FCC declares itself as the sole arbiter of anything going wrong online... So before, where you could go to the FTC (which has all the experience shutting down protectionist, monopolistic behaviour), the FCC now gets to determine if google or verizon doing something that is expressly allowed by it's regs (but is clearly a violation of anti-trust laws) is legal! WAKE UP PEOPLE. Stop thinking with your hearts and read the crap being shown to you as 'the protection you need from your evil ISP'.
Comcast said they would hold off any big new plans after they killed neutrality. It is a wise move because the suckers will feel safe and think all the fear mongering was a bunch of hype. Then slowly little by little the ISPs turn up the heat and you'll ignore the complains by the haters as we all slowly come to a boil.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I don't think that real competition is realistic in the ISP space. Why can't you choose your water provider? There is only one set of pipes entering your home. The situation with ISPs isn't quite that extreme, but it is an example of the same problem - there is expensive infrastructure that needs to be plumbed to every home and that naturally limits the number of competitors that can play. Therefore the "free market" cannot solve the problem on its own. If you only have one option for your ISP, without net neutrality there is nothing stopping your local ISP that serves your home from say, only serving news from CNN (or FOX), or blocking youtube. They can do whatever they want because you have no other option.
Its only the biggest companies putting massive traffic on the network that benefit from NN, not any users.
Um.. are you saying that when a user requests a youtube stream, that youtube is putting massive traffic over the network and not the user? The user benefits from the youtube stream, do they not?
MOD Parent up
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I don't think that real competition is realistic in the ISP space. Why can't you choose your water provider? There is only one set of pipes entering your home. The situation with ISPs isn't quite that extreme, but it is an example of the same problem - there is expensive infrastructure that needs to be plumbed to every home and that naturally limits the number of competitors that can play. Therefore the "free market" cannot solve the problem on its own. If you only have one option for your ISP, without net neutrality there is nothing stopping your local ISP that serves your home from say, only serving news from CNN (or FOX), or blocking youtube. They can do whatever they want because you have no other option.
Actually, in rural areas, people still use wells for their water supply. In some suburban areas, it's possible to use different natural gas suppliers. And, some people choose to disconnect and live off of the grid. As it relates to ISPs, I think what most residential customers do not realize is how crappy residential service is compared to commercial ISP offerings. The physical wiring that goes to residential are essentially the same as commercial, but the contractual offerings for commercial are far superior in terms of guaranteed throughput. No "up to NNN Mbps speeds..."
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
The market solution to insufficient competition is, in theory, more competition. When there's not enough competition, we have a market failure, and regulators should step in, in this case with Net Neutrality.
Q: How much govt does it take to ruin a free market? A: any amount.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
The regulators have been taken hostage by lobbyists who successfully hijack state law to ban local competition.
One case where the feds *should* invoke interstate commerce to protect competition.
Precisely, somehow I doubt the people benefiting from the system are somehow going to lose out with "more regulations." Taleb's "Bob Rubin trade" http://bit.ly/2N3xxaz
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
These past two years have been ROUGH without net neutrality. With all the... uhh...
Well when the telecom providers did the... uhhh.... the bad things.... with..
MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL IS ALWAYS BETTER!
(This message brought to you by NN advocates and general government propaganda)
So you're saying it's about the consumer?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying.
No, it doesn't make any sense, and no he will never realize exactly how idiotic his rantings are.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The answer to "the regulator is toothless" is not "remove the regulator". It's "give the regulator teeth". Similarly, the answer to "the regulator has been captured by providers" is "don't allow this to happen". See also: FAA & Boeing.
Yeah, but no. We had free markets in the UK in the 1800s and we got potato famines, adulteration of food beverages and medicines, grotesque industrial injuries, kids being sent up chimneys, etc etc.
I'd focus on masturbating to the idea of free markets, because they're a fantasy that seem to turn you on. In real life, you can carry on living in a country that uses regulations to ensure your buildings don't fall over, your kids' toys aren't stuffed silly with cheap nasty chemicals that'll kill them, a gallon in a gas station is actually a gallon, and endlessly on. I suppose you can try to set up your own free state where none of this is true, but the odds of it being a success that doesn't look like Somalia seem pretty low to me. Happy to be proved wrong though!
Yeah, but no. We had free markets in the UK in the 1800s and we got potato famines, adulteration of food beverages and medicines, grotesque industrial injuries, kids being sent up chimneys, etc etc.
I'd focus on masturbating to the idea of free markets, because they're a fantasy that seem to turn you on. In real life, you can carry on living in a country that uses regulations to ensure your buildings don't fall over, your kids' toys aren't stuffed silly with cheap nasty chemicals that'll kill them, a gallon in a gas station is actually a gallon, and endlessly on. I suppose you can try to set up your own free state where none of this is true, but the odds of it being a success that doesn't look like Somalia seem pretty low to me. Happy to be proved wrong though!
Hammurabi solved the collapsing building problem thousands of years ago... Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer Reports, Snell Foundation, etc etc are not govt agencies... you do realize that the effect of govt regulation is to limit liabilities, not actually to protect consumers?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
I'd focus on masturbating to the idea of free markets, because they're a fantasy that seem to turn you on.
Also, you seem to be turned on by the govt regulatory utopia we're currently in... advocating for more of it and all... lol
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Ah yes... Parliament passes the Corn Laws, overtaxing grain imports so that corn and bread become prohibitively expensive, so people rely on eating potatoes instead, then a potato blight hits and the suddenly the over-reliance on potatoes is the "free market" in action and the government tariffs which created the situation are to be ignored.
The problem is that you're ignorant to the negative side effects of what really happens when people try to control vast swaths of the economy, not the least of which is regulatory capture where the most powerful companies being regulated end up over time influencing the regulations to mostly hurt any new competition from being started against them, which is mostly how we got in the current situation in the first place.
But sure, it's always more regulation is needed to fix the bad effects of the previous rounds of regulations and this time it'll be different. Have you actually read the NN rules? They're not exactly a statement of NN principles.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
First I am a huge fan of the idea of three page bills. Hopefully they assert actual net neutrality and not Obama era rules.
In this case they want the content to provider to pay AND the consumer to pay. It's like rinse and repeat. But it won't stop there. The biggest worries about net neutrality are subtle things you can't easily prove are even happening if you even know they are happening at all.
the EFF probably doesn't have the money it would take to overcome the opposition
You really do know fuck all about history, don't you?
The causes of the Famine included: the unchecked power of landlords over their tenants; the consequential splitting of tenant landholdings into ever small parcels, such that ultimately only potatoes could be farmed (Irish farmers at this time were subsistence famers, they could not afford to buy their main source of calories, because they were impoverished, not because of the price of grain); and the dominance of the potato as a staple crop (and especially the Irish Lumper), significantly driven by the use of better pasture land to grow beef for the English market (those unchecked landlords again).
Notoriously, the Famine's impact was made dramatically worse by the Whig government's laissez-faire conviction that the market would provide the food required. You really do have to be all kinds of stupid to review the history of the Famine and conclude that the main problem was government action, as opposed to inaction.
Naturally, you go on to prove this to be the case, by tendentiously explaining the concept of regulatory capture, and then assuming that because regulation is necessarily imperfect (what with being a human endeavour and all), it is never a good idea, a particularly risible argument when you consider how it might apply to capitalism, free markets, etc.
Hammurabi? Are you fucking kidding me?! Hammurabi created a *law*! with a *sanction*! That is regulation, you muppet! As the ruler of the country -- you know, the government -- he wrote a law that said builders whose buildings collapse and kill someone should themselves be killed. You should be *outraged* at Hammurabi interfering in the free market in that way, not parading it as though it's an example of the free market in action.
Jesus fucking Christ, you people try to be so clever and then you say such stupid stupid things.
Believe you me, people in real life care about the inflated bill for crappy internet service
And NN as enacted by the FCC rules that the Dems want put back has nothing at all to do with prices or price controls.
You want full-time, dedicated gigabit service instead of a network that you share with others upstream from you, then prepare to pay for it. Once you start sharing, you need to understand you are sharing a limited resource, just like telecom planning has resulted in since Mr. Bell called his assistant to come help.
You seem to be proposing the novel idea that competition is possible in the current climate, or am I mistaken?
Not only is it possible, it is happening. You have to let go of the idea that the "cable company" is the only possible source of Internet service to notice it, however.
You are aware that it's not legally permissible to actually compete with the current monopolists as things stand, right?
Yes I am aware that this lie is floating around out there.
Hammurabi? Are you fucking kidding me?! Hammurabi created a *law*! with a *sanction*! That is regulation, you muppet! As the ruler of the country -- you know, the government -- he wrote a law that said builders whose buildings collapse and kill someone should themselves be killed. You should be *outraged* at Hammurabi interfering in the free market in that way, not parading it as though it's an example of the free market in action.
Jesus fucking Christ, you people try to be so clever and then you say such stupid stupid things.
Saying "stupid stupid things"... free markets are not free of ethics... https://freekeene.com/2007/12/...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
ISP's pay government, government grants monopolies,
Not in the US. It is against federal law for any cable communications company to be granted an exclusive franchise. Then the issue becomes that you don't have to be a cable communications company to be an ISP, and no ISP EVER has been granted an exclusive franchise.
States are attempting to retire their POTS cable and are finding out 911 emergency service goes away with it
Really? I can call 911 from my cell phone just fine. They even get my GPS coordinates when I do. Where is 911 going?
and begin seperating publishers from content producers,
Uhhh, huh? So if I write a book I should not be able to publish it and sell it myself? Freedom of speech, much?
"There's no need for 4k streaming of anything, IMO." High-def microscopic research done remotely?
You've fallen for the typical argument tactic of someone telling you what "you don't need". Doesn't matter what what's-his-name thinks you or I need. Nobody died and left him in charge of what we need.
Re "Why can't you choose your water provider?"
Water is not simple trenching and installing well understood fiber tech for community broadband.
People in any community can find smart people to do trenching. The place some new ducts and get with installing fiber.
Ask a people on private land if they wish to connect to a community network?
Get told yes and more trenching on private land.
the service is connected and ready for use.
Get told no and that property does not get a new service connected.
the duct is in place. The working fiber waits.
Drop in any number of ISP from all over the USA.
Just like any monopoly telco that should keep up with advancements in network tech.
No federal laws and NN rules needed.
Make a network, connect as requested. Enjoy ISP freedom. Network speed and not having to wait years longer for a NN approved federal monopoly network.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Instead of talking about new strawmen as a distraction, it would be better if you simply acknowledged that you cited an example of a government using deadly force as a regulatory sanction as evidence of how free markets can operate successfully without regulation. If you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself.
That's great, and I generally agree, but you're not dealing in a free market in this case. When the vast majority of homes only have one cable provider, that's not a free market. The feds need to jump in whenever things are turning monopolistic, and we've lost sight of that ever since breaking up AT&T.
Just another day in Paradise
And yet, you're still dealing with one ISP. That's not a free market.
Just another day in Paradise
That's great, and I generally agree, but you're not dealing in a free market in this case. When the vast majority of homes only have one cable provider, that's not a free market. The feds need to jump in whenever things are turning monopolistic, and we've lost sight of that ever since breaking up AT&T.
The feds created the monopoly. There's certainly no free markets with fiat money.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
And yet, you're still dealing with one ISP. That's not a free market.
Are the regs you're advocating for going to cement their position or actually open up competition?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Instead of talking about new strawmen as a distraction, it would be better if you simply acknowledged that you cited an example of a government using deadly force as a regulatory sanction as evidence of how free markets can operate successfully without regulation. If you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself.
Self fancied logicians are some of the dumbest people... I've been there. Good luck.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Listen, I'm a small government conservative. But, in the case of monopolistic behavior, there's no option but to have government step in and either break up the monopoly, or find some other way to open up the market.
Just another day in Paradise
So you're not going to admit you argued government regulation was bad by approvingly citing an example of government regulation?
I mean this is hardly fancy logic. This is the same as someone arguing "trains are always shittier than cars. Here's an example of a train that's better than car". It's just idiocy.
What this means is that they're in on it.
For some reason the telecoms have an incentive to tolerate it, which means they're on the take.
Your eyes lack the total number of photo receptors to accommodate 4k video. That is why you don't need it.
The human eye has between 6 and 7 million cone cells in it. That number is divided into 3, because each cone cell is receptive to only a single notch of the light spectrum.
This gives your eye a total "RGB" receptivity of about 2 million total "pixels".
4k video streams 8,294,400 ACTUAL, Fully RGB pixels every frame.
That is 4 times the resolution of your eyeball.
If you were capturing the high res data for offline review later, that is fine, but you don't need to stream that. You stream what you are actively watching. Again, your eyes physically cannot accommodate that. Sending that over the wire is absurd. You dont need it.