I'd love to see a law where it was likewise illegal for any public employee to LIE during any interactions with the public. This should apply to anyone presently receiving tax dollars in compensation for their actions, and the penalties should be identical to perjury.
You have already admitted that there is no monopoly in governance, so quit bringing that up.
If there's no monopoly via the FCC then there's no monopoly via ComCast either. Didn't you argue, just yesterday, that controls over the ISPs were warranted because of their monopoly? Could people who don't like ComCast not simply move to Europe?? You simply cannot have it both ways.
? Honestly, if you have half a million to invest, unless cooking is your absolute passion, invest it in anything else but a restaurant.
There's this guy outside of a nearby Walmart with a hand-painted sign that says 'Tacos'. He's operating out of a trailer. If that set-up cost him $500,000.00 then he got SCREWED! So, yes, I do thing you're overestimating the costs involved in order to make your point. Further you're not allowing that a half-million-dollar restaurant might sell things and there-by bring in some income. But whatever.
While there are matters of scale, why should that matter?
Yes. Clearly it should within the realm of all reasonable conversation.
Does your convenience in choosing a government from the world wide free market in governance override other people's right to self determination?
Well that depends. Are we talking about the laws I'm expected to follow or some other nation's power to erect their own laws. In the former, yes absolutely there should never be any law that imposes on me more than expatriating. This is a fine metric, actually. In the latter case, they're free to do as they see fit.
You don't get to dictate to the owners how they will run their business, sorry.
'Owners' of government being whom, exactly?
Besides in the business world we get to vote with our wallets. That would be an EXCELLENT check-and-ballance on goverment, actually. Only pay taxes on what you agree with! Oh yes, I LOVE that idea!!
Yes, you are a part owner of this business, and that gets you some say here, but you don't get to override the other owners wishes, we have a whole process to make the decision making as fair as possible.
Well, thankfully, I'm not in the minority. Otherwise we might have to arrange a hostile takeover. Meanwhile, I sit confident that competition is a good thing and monopolies are bad, including governments.
(Now, if you'd been clever enough to use "cook your own burger" as your counter example, I wouldn't have such an easy time refuting it, but you didn't use that example, now did you?;)
No, I did not, but I also wouldn't have expected you to slide the scale on one end, but not the other. To open a stand might cost half a million up-front/loaned dollars, but then the opportunity cost of your career, your wife's, and your childrens' could easily triple that over their lifetimes, when adjusted for interest and the like... Why amplify one extreme but not the other?
Even putting too many burger stands in the same area will cause some burger stands to disappear...
...allowing new stands to open, infinitely. I'm talking about the long haul here, not the single second frozen in time. It isn't as if once the seventh stand was opened that human would explode when trying to open the eighth.
I'm sad. We had a moment there, then I made a point, then you got all loosey-goosey with the logic. Bummer.
You're absolutely right, but there are matters of scale involved. Relocating to another country involves new languages, customs, loss of loved ones, and considerable expense. Not nearly as big of a deal as going to the shop next door.
Indeed it would be comparably easier to open up your very own burger stand than it would be to relocate to another country.
And again, the market allows an infinite number of burger stands. There are much greater barriers to forming your own nation.
So let me ask you, how do you feel about a group of people who do not say "Do as I say, or we kill you" but instead say, "Do as we say, or we shun you. You are, in effect, dead to us. No trade. No help. No living near us. You go away now." Is that an acceptable form of government?
To answer the question, minus the omission, yes this would be far preferable. I'd say that the 'living near' us between the guy buying and the guy selling that land. Otherwise, yes.
I believe deeply in the 'as for me and my house' standard, and I think it works well for nearly every application...
I believe in the right of individuals to band together into groups to protect their interests.
This basic right is a very agreeable thing, too. Unfortunately these kinds of groups are usually formed under genuine need and yet perpetuated under corruption. They often wind up bent to the whims of the loudest voices or some other undue influencer. At some point they circle back on themselves from 'we shun you' to 'we will kill anyone who does not shun you' - it's just simple human dynamics. Starts off decent and good, and goes south pretty fast. In a market scenario competition usually offers a 'fix' to this sort of thing.
When was the last time you heard of 'competing government'?
The reason being that your argument is based solely on the boogeyman, and the only scenario you presented was a fictional proposition of a consumer setting up a competing VOIP rather than being a user of a competing VOIP service.
s/boogeyman/hyperbole/g - but yes, it was intended to illustrate the extreme. AT&T deserves to defend themselves from the extreme, do they not? A truly neutral net would necessarily exclude them from doing so, ergo the argument. Or are you only arguing a somewhat-neutral net? And that's the case, then isn't that what the FCC is offering??
Now that you failed to win any points with your VOIP example, you've decided to bring out the old boogeyman bittorrent.
And now that you're tired of the conversation, you're going ad hominem.
My argument is simply that there exist now examples of things that people use networks to do that cause them harm. Further there are things not yet imagined that will do likewise, I'm certain. The networks deserve the right to react to those things, and neutrality involves removing that power. FEEL FREE TO CHOOSE YOUR OWN EXAMPLES IF YOU WISH.
Label that in any way that makes it easier to attack me as you wish, but you have yet to explain away how this is not the case. You're lightly making a claim that no one wants to do this, and that's all fine in the gumdrop forest, but in the real world people are more opportunistic than this and we both know it.
To be fair, I do not necessarily worship at the alter of market forces. I do agree that you, spun, have summed me up in this manner, but that's okay, you're clearly a busy poster talking to a lot of people on here and it can be helpful to take shortcuts.
No, to be clear, I oppose government. If there is a solution, almost ANY solution, that could otherwise achieve the desired result then I say use that FIRST. Exhaustively, even. Government, as in 'do as I say or we kill you', should never ever be used, except maybe as a last resort.
Market forces are one of those things that can and will eventually work, and such are preferable to government in almost every case.
How about, oh I don't know, instead of charging us more, they reduce their profits to a fair and reasonable level? Why is it always the little guy who has to tighten his belt?
Not your words, but that was a decent expression of the sentiment that I was referring to...
Well, then 'what you have seen' is limited. How is that a flaw in my argument, rather than your own?
The position is in TFA:
This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.
The article reads like this power means GPS software, but it also includes network-wrecking things like bit torrent. Again, I'd absolutely love to see a network so robust as you could do absolutely everything the marketing number says you can do. LOVE IT. That service, though, wouldn't be the ones the new laws/rules would govern.
Yeah, we definitely disagree. The whole 'giant corporation' thing is a myth perpetuated to keep those corporations in power. Amazingly, it is usually ascribed to those who oppose corporations vehemently.
I don't see it explicitly forbidden by their use policy.
It's right there: interferes with use of AT&T's network or systems
If you're using more than they 'designed in' for you to use, then you're causing interference. Not that it is your fault, mind you, it is the designer's fault. But they do good things with the right to stop you from saturating their network, e.g. operate a voice service.
Net neutrality, taken to the extreme, means the provider gets no say in the utilization of the stream. This is a great ideal to strive towards, but it would require a complete redesign of the infrastructure to accommodate it.
I didn't say it was easy, but I do specifically rebut the notion that the corporations are all made up of magical people with superhuman powers which cannot be rivaled by mortal man.
Their 4g data is also unlimited at $60, I don't think they are subsidizing that with their voice systems (They are probably investing voice profits into that network, but they aren't building the 4g network for voice traffic...).
Ah, but their 4g is in what - 20 cities? Could well be an introductory rate or some other scenario that changes prior to going nationwide.
Now, to be fair, I genuinely hope this is NOT the case. I'd love to see those 6mbps hockey pucks available everywhere. It would simultaneously cause the wired carriers to step things up a notch AND shut up a lot of the 'monopoly whiners' as I call them.
Your premise assumes unlimited bandwidth, which isn't part of the net neutrality argument. The idea behind net neutrality is that you should be able to use the full extent of that bandwidth that you purchased regardless of what the packets contain.
But that isn't the bandwidth you purchased. Again, in AT&T's example, you're riding along the 'extra' bandwidth for their already-IP Proprietary/SIP/what-have-you network. Had they known you were going to run your own telco over it they would have presented you with an entirely different contract.
That would explain why we don't have 30MBps everywhere in the flyover states, but that doesn't explain why we have (comparatively) asstastic service in our major cities.
Sure it does. The decisions, laws, and dozens of other factors are made at a national level. You'll get variations in service to a degree, but you're not going to see Sprint run one kind of network for New York City and a completely different one for Albany. That would be a logistical nightmare.
The "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" version. You know...what Net Neutrality actually means.
I'd shudder to see what the pricetag for such a data plan would be on AT&T's wireless network, for example. You can run your own VoIP, for example, and not use their phone services? Data prices would have to go up to compensate. That's the way the world works, as far as I know...
Take it all the way to the extreme and FORCE them to provide whatever you want at a mandated low price and then you'll get the most craptastic service you've ever imagined.
Unless we're ready to federalize the entire thing, there's no expectation that we can have whatever we want without paying for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it shouldn't be something one does to our public officials by surprise, by any means - but I really do think that it is a reasonable rule:
If you're on the clock, you cannot lie, under penalty of law.
Any public official that wasn't okay with this could reasonably seek private employment, right?
Yes, this. We need to make this happen.
Could we, maybe, also up the ante just a bit?
I'd love to see a law where it was likewise illegal for any public employee to LIE during any interactions with the public. This should apply to anyone presently receiving tax dollars in compensation for their actions, and the penalties should be identical to perjury.
Who's with me?
You have already admitted that there is no monopoly in governance, so quit bringing that up.
If there's no monopoly via the FCC then there's no monopoly via ComCast either. Didn't you argue, just yesterday, that controls over the ISPs were warranted because of their monopoly? Could people who don't like ComCast not simply move to Europe?? You simply cannot have it both ways.
? Honestly, if you have half a million to invest, unless cooking is your absolute passion, invest it in anything else but a restaurant.
There's this guy outside of a nearby Walmart with a hand-painted sign that says 'Tacos'. He's operating out of a trailer. If that set-up cost him $500,000.00 then he got SCREWED! So, yes, I do thing you're overestimating the costs involved in order to make your point. Further you're not allowing that a half-million-dollar restaurant might sell things and there-by bring in some income. But whatever.
While there are matters of scale, why should that matter?
Yes. Clearly it should within the realm of all reasonable conversation.
Does your convenience in choosing a government from the world wide free market in governance override other people's right to self determination?
Well that depends. Are we talking about the laws I'm expected to follow or some other nation's power to erect their own laws. In the former, yes absolutely there should never be any law that imposes on me more than expatriating. This is a fine metric, actually. In the latter case, they're free to do as they see fit.
You don't get to dictate to the owners how they will run their business, sorry.
'Owners' of government being whom, exactly?
Besides in the business world we get to vote with our wallets. That would be an EXCELLENT check-and-ballance on goverment, actually. Only pay taxes on what you agree with! Oh yes, I LOVE that idea!!
Yes, you are a part owner of this business, and that gets you some say here, but you don't get to override the other owners wishes, we have a whole process to make the decision making as fair as possible.
Well, thankfully, I'm not in the minority. Otherwise we might have to arrange a hostile takeover. Meanwhile, I sit confident that competition is a good thing and monopolies are bad, including governments.
(Now, if you'd been clever enough to use "cook your own burger" as your counter example, I wouldn't have such an easy time refuting it, but you didn't use that example, now did you? ;)
No, I did not, but I also wouldn't have expected you to slide the scale on one end, but not the other. To open a stand might cost half a million up-front/loaned dollars, but then the opportunity cost of your career, your wife's, and your childrens' could easily triple that over their lifetimes, when adjusted for interest and the like... Why amplify one extreme but not the other?
Even putting too many burger stands in the same area will cause some burger stands to disappear...
...allowing new stands to open, infinitely. I'm talking about the long haul here, not the single second frozen in time. It isn't as if once the seventh stand was opened that human would explode when trying to open the eighth.
I'm sad. We had a moment there, then I made a point, then you got all loosey-goosey with the logic. Bummer.
You're absolutely right, but there are matters of scale involved. Relocating to another country involves new languages, customs, loss of loved ones, and considerable expense. Not nearly as big of a deal as going to the shop next door.
Indeed it would be comparably easier to open up your very own burger stand than it would be to relocate to another country.
And again, the market allows an infinite number of burger stands. There are much greater barriers to forming your own nation.
RATS! The tags didn't work! Please omit 'no living near us' from the above quote...
So let me ask you, how do you feel about a group of people who do not say "Do as I say, or we kill you" but instead say, "Do as we say, or we shun you. You are, in effect, dead to us. No trade. No help. No living near us. You go away now." Is that an acceptable form of government?
To answer the question, minus the omission, yes this would be far preferable. I'd say that the 'living near' us between the guy buying and the guy selling that land. Otherwise, yes.
I believe deeply in the 'as for me and my house' standard, and I think it works well for nearly every application...
I believe in the right of individuals to band together into groups to protect their interests.
This basic right is a very agreeable thing, too. Unfortunately these kinds of groups are usually formed under genuine need and yet perpetuated under corruption. They often wind up bent to the whims of the loudest voices or some other undue influencer. At some point they circle back on themselves from 'we shun you' to 'we will kill anyone who does not shun you' - it's just simple human dynamics. Starts off decent and good, and goes south pretty fast. In a market scenario competition usually offers a 'fix' to this sort of thing.
When was the last time you heard of 'competing government'?
The reason being that your argument is based solely on the boogeyman, and the only scenario you presented was a fictional proposition of a consumer setting up a competing VOIP rather than being a user of a competing VOIP service.
s/boogeyman/hyperbole/g - but yes, it was intended to illustrate the extreme. AT&T deserves to defend themselves from the extreme, do they not? A truly neutral net would necessarily exclude them from doing so, ergo the argument. Or are you only arguing a somewhat-neutral net? And that's the case, then isn't that what the FCC is offering??
Now that you failed to win any points with your VOIP example, you've decided to bring out the old boogeyman bittorrent.
And now that you're tired of the conversation, you're going ad hominem.
My argument is simply that there exist now examples of things that people use networks to do that cause them harm. Further there are things not yet imagined that will do likewise, I'm certain. The networks deserve the right to react to those things, and neutrality involves removing that power. FEEL FREE TO CHOOSE YOUR OWN EXAMPLES IF YOU WISH.
Label that in any way that makes it easier to attack me as you wish, but you have yet to explain away how this is not the case. You're lightly making a claim that no one wants to do this, and that's all fine in the gumdrop forest, but in the real world people are more opportunistic than this and we both know it.
To be fair, I do not necessarily worship at the alter of market forces. I do agree that you, spun, have summed me up in this manner, but that's okay, you're clearly a busy poster talking to a lot of people on here and it can be helpful to take shortcuts.
No, to be clear, I oppose government. If there is a solution, almost ANY solution, that could otherwise achieve the desired result then I say use that FIRST. Exhaustively, even. Government, as in 'do as I say or we kill you', should never ever be used, except maybe as a last resort.
Market forces are one of those things that can and will eventually work, and such are preferable to government in almost every case.
That's my view of it, anyway.
How about, oh I don't know, instead of charging us more, they reduce their profits to a fair and reasonable level? Why is it always the little guy who has to tighten his belt?
Not your words, but that was a decent expression of the sentiment that I was referring to...
Well, then 'what you have seen' is limited. How is that a flaw in my argument, rather than your own?
The position is in TFA:
This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.
The article reads like this power means GPS software, but it also includes network-wrecking things like bit torrent. Again, I'd absolutely love to see a network so robust as you could do absolutely everything the marketing number says you can do. LOVE IT. That service, though, wouldn't be the ones the new laws/rules would govern.
Well, there's some value to the claim 'best/biggest/most popular 4g network', so perhaps that makes up the gap you're seeing.
Yeah, we definitely disagree. The whole 'giant corporation' thing is a myth perpetuated to keep those corporations in power. Amazingly, it is usually ascribed to those who oppose corporations vehemently.
Ever seen the movie The 13th Warrior? It's a lot like that.
I don't see it explicitly forbidden by their use policy.
It's right there:
interferes with use of AT&T's network or systems
If you're using more than they 'designed in' for you to use, then you're causing interference. Not that it is your fault, mind you, it is the designer's fault. But they do good things with the right to stop you from saturating their network, e.g. operate a voice service.
Net neutrality, taken to the extreme, means the provider gets no say in the utilization of the stream. This is a great ideal to strive towards, but it would require a complete redesign of the infrastructure to accommodate it.
If it had any shred of credibility, then our urban areas would be shining bastions of broadband connectivity, rivaling those of Europe and Asia.
That's assuming that the business units here in the States act as independently as they do overseas. They don't.
I didn't say it was easy, but I do specifically rebut the notion that the corporations are all made up of magical people with superhuman powers which cannot be rivaled by mortal man.
Their 4g data is also unlimited at $60, I don't think they are subsidizing that with their voice systems (They are probably investing voice profits into that network, but they aren't building the 4g network for voice traffic...).
Ah, but their 4g is in what - 20 cities? Could well be an introductory rate or some other scenario that changes prior to going nationwide.
Now, to be fair, I genuinely hope this is NOT the case. I'd love to see those 6mbps hockey pucks available everywhere. It would simultaneously cause the wired carriers to step things up a notch AND shut up a lot of the 'monopoly whiners' as I call them.
Your premise assumes unlimited bandwidth, which isn't part of the net neutrality argument. The idea behind net neutrality is that you should be able to use the full extent of that bandwidth that you purchased regardless of what the packets contain.
But that isn't the bandwidth you purchased. Again, in AT&T's example, you're riding along the 'extra' bandwidth for their already-IP Proprietary/SIP/what-have-you network. Had they known you were going to run your own telco over it they would have presented you with an entirely different contract.
That would explain why we don't have 30MBps everywhere in the flyover states, but that doesn't explain why we have (comparatively) asstastic service in our major cities.
Sure it does. The decisions, laws, and dozens of other factors are made at a national level. You'll get variations in service to a degree, but you're not going to see Sprint run one kind of network for New York City and a completely different one for Albany. That would be a logistical nightmare.
We need to switch to SIP. Phone "numbers" and phone calls would be as free as email addresses and email.
So now we picture a world where phone calls are along the same quality lines as email:
1) May or may not get there, ever
2) Spam
3) Google listens to all your calls
etc
But they can do this off the back of their other profitable business modes. You're talking about killing those by law.
Why not just let the price go up? Nobody's asking for it to be free or cheap, just Free.
Because we already pay the highest prices in the world.
Because the little guy isn't brave enough to launch his own AT&T.
European and Asian markets are nothing like those in the US in terms of geography nor density.
Try again...
The "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" version. You know...what Net Neutrality actually means.
I'd shudder to see what the pricetag for such a data plan would be on AT&T's wireless network, for example. You can run your own VoIP, for example, and not use their phone services? Data prices would have to go up to compensate. That's the way the world works, as far as I know...
Take it all the way to the extreme and FORCE them to provide whatever you want at a mandated low price and then you'll get the most craptastic service you've ever imagined.
Unless we're ready to federalize the entire thing, there's no expectation that we can have whatever we want without paying for it.