No. We're talking about areas where the handful of largest carriers have NO interest in spending money to set up shop. They come right out and say they won't ever provide services in those areas. This is the situation across vast swathes of the country's terrain. New technologies are shaping up to make it possible for small businesses to serve the people who live in, for example, a struggling rural town in Kentucky that Comcast and Verizon swear they will never even visit. Those small businesses need to have the ability to shape traffic as they see fit to serve their customers, especially low-income customers.
What if they don't want to throttle all videos? What if they only want to dial down cat videos on YouTube and pron while making sure that the local community college's distance learning program's streaming video content gets top priority for users on their network? That's exactly the sorts of decisions that small network providers want to be able to make, and can't.
And if a company is trying to set up 201 fixed wireless locations in rural areas with an average of 500 users in each small town location currently getting no service, they're screwed under the current regime.
Leftists have no desire for authority, only to destroy it.
You can't redistribute one person's productive output to other people or centrally manage an economy without authority. If a shameless capitalist wanted to set up shop in your ideal leftist space and start competing with the government-run factories to produce better products, you'd have to have authority to stop them. Leftists cannot bring any of their ideas to bear on other people without authority, and that authority is meaningless without the threat of force. When enough people don't like leftist's idea of the way everyone has to live under their systems, the leftists inevitably have to line people up and shoot them, build walls to trap them inside their paradise, or watch them starve. All of which has always happened when leftists actually get what they want. Leftists, by definition, can only create the environment they call for through the use of authority over other people. It's the very nature of that world view.
Only a totalitarian-minded, nanny state socialist would consider choosing not to forget the 100+ million people that socialists have killed in the last 100 years to "getting dumber." Your definition of being smart is to forget the slaughter that leftists have always committed? Classic. And so predictable.
With net neutrality they aren't allowed to discriminate per government mandate.
No, they are forced by the government to convey things they don't want to. You've got it exactly, perfectly backwards. You want private people and the organizations they build to be forced by the government to give a platform to people with whom they disagree. You want the government to control your own editorial decisions, instead of you doing that according to your own standards. Please don't do things that are dangerous to other people... like voting. Because you're interested in a powerful, intrusive nanny state, and a lot of people don't want the government even more involved in their day to day lives that they already are.
This seems like a very real consequence of allowing private companies to be gate keepers of the information on the internet, who can choose what content to offer without impunity.
No, that would be a consequence of allowing the government to be the gate keeper. If a private entity wants to have an editorial position on their content, what's not to like? Or are you suggesting that the New York Times should be forced to run every lunatic letter to the editor they receive? Or that NPR should have to use some of their air time to run gay-bashing evangelical crap so that nobody can accuse them of being a "gatekeeper?"
As long as the government isn't stopping you (which would violate the first amendment's protections), YOU can set up your own search engine and run it and not care at all about what makes it to the top of your site's search results. Have at it! As a private entity, you have that right - including the right to make sure that my comments never appear because you don't like them.
Actual history. The idiotic tiki-torch-carrying wannabes have nothing on socialists when it comes to death. And the socialists are getting coddled, right now, in schools around you.
I think he was being informative, actually. Because the socialists are the ones with the really big death toll on their hands, and they're still given places of privilege in places like US institutions of higher education.
This. People wildly misunderstand the cost of overhead in an operation like Starbucks. They also think that a $5.00 single-scoop ice cream cone is making that shop owner rich.
And yet, SBUX shares are up $1.45 today, and for me, up ~1300% from when I bought some. I don't frequent their stores very often, but apparently a lot of people do. But if you like, say, their French Roast, you can buy big bags of it at Costco for cheap (and it's often on sale for $5 off per bag), and crank out a cup of that dark brew for a fraction of the walk-up costs, and ground/brewed exactly as you personally like it.
But it's not cities where this is needed. It's the places outside the cities where there's no high speed access of any kind, and never will be if it involves pulling cable/fiber down winding roads in less densely populated areas.
Only a dollar, not counting all of the other expenses required to exploit the technique in anything resembling a reliable, portable, battery-feasible practical application.
My SUV runs on lug nuts and body panel rivets that only cost pennies each to manufacture!
No, they're just regular rich people with shared common interests.
And their common interests include throwing their enormous influence, financial horsepower, and the power of their media empires, behind one party's politicians... and then encouraging useful idiots to champion their campaign to maintain a regulation put in place by that party to keep smaller competition from the market. Just regular rich people putting you to work for them. But then, someone like you who is so willing to look at some of the most powerful people in the world and wish away their actions because it would mean even considering that the people you so abidingly, vitriolically, almost fetishitcally hate might have a point about Comcast's interest in keeping compliance-costly Obama regulations in place... yeah, that's enough to shut down your critical thinking right there. Only takes one little appeal to emotion from those "regular rich people" and you're all over their agenda for them. Good work! I'm sure they really appreciate your efforts on their behalf.
So you've read up plenty, and have concluded that people like Larry Page or Sergey Brin or Jeff Bezos or Obama golf-buddy Brian Roberts or Hillary supporter Lowell McAdam are all right wingers. Gotcha. I can only imagine your sources. Let me guess, the Russians have infiltrated your reading list.
So, indeed, you don't have the energy to read up. I get it. Not having the energy to face reality is also what caused the last election to go the way it did.
Excellent. So, I know you've exhausted yourself typing out that denial. But maybe you can muster the energy to show us some examples of the right-wing policies of these companies. Or, maybe you're too distracted by Dem partisan leanings and support of the owners and boards of directors of those companies? I know, it sucks when your assertions don't match up to reality. But you seem, like so many other lefties, to confuse "large company" with "conservative." Because you like low-brow, childish cartoon versions of bad guys, and you're sure that anyone running a big business must be a Republican because you've been told that both big businesses are bad and Republicans are bad, and so they must be the same thing. Grow up! Spend a little time reading the actual political positions and lobbying support positions taken by and funded by those who run Comcast, Google, Amazon, Facebook and the others whose bidding you're doing by backing their anti-competitive position on Obama's NN edict. I know, too much work for you, especially if it raises the possibility that you'll discover that those companies are run by ardent Democrats. No fun, is it.
When specific types of traffic from just a few huge companies DO burn up almost all of your bandwidth, yes there IS need for prioritizing it. Why do you care if the people who own a network outside Wichita, where thousands of customers have never been able to seen the internet above dial-up speeds, decides to dial back some streaming video traffic from two or three huge corporations so the local community college's distance learning streaming can run without buffering? Is it just the thought of that that makes you so mad you're willing to keep Obama's fiat rule on this in place, rather than supporting actual legislation, instead? Did a small ISP hurt your family once or something? Do you hate the idea of farmers and small companies outside your comfortable suburban existence having access to resources like this? Maybe its farmers you hate so much.
In case you didn't know, that is not a liberal ideal.
Then why are notably liberal companies like Amazon and Google and Comcast 100% invested in that strategy, and talking people like you into helping them out by backing their corporate agenda? Dominance by large corporate entities with government hands in how they run things is EXACTLY what liberals love and stand for. Small businesses providing competing services in an entrepreneurial market is absolutely the opposite of what liberals seek to allow. At every turn. Liberals crave government power of your life, your business, and your daily activities across the board. Nanny-state style intrusion into your affairs - in your own life and especially if you're foolish enough to try to run a small business - is the very hallmark of lefty politics and thinking.
If the government wants to be somewhat helpful in the matter, they could start by outlawing all exclusive contracts that protect the ISPs' monopolies, and also bar them from blocking any competitive services from entering the area, including government services that the people might demand. The internet might become more "neutral" and open as a result.
And yet it's liberal politicians who built up those barriers to entry, and who made them far, far worse over the preceding eight years. So, here comes a new administration looking to reverse the actions of a previous executive (there's no actual LAW involved here - you do understand that, right? just Obama-pen-using to make it so difficult for small businesses to exist and compete), and you're choosing to see the entire situation exactly backwards because you're still not over the fact that during Obama's tenure, Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who grew completely exhausted with that crap and with Hillary's promises to make it even worse.
Scentcone is a traitor posing as a businessman. Just like Donald.
You can always tell you when you've made a valid point because the people who wish it weren't true can't make it past laughable ad hominem right out of some 5th grader's idea of countering a point. Excellent work, thanks for reinforcing what I said. Please keep it up!
Slashdot Mirror
No. We're talking about areas where the handful of largest carriers have NO interest in spending money to set up shop. They come right out and say they won't ever provide services in those areas. This is the situation across vast swathes of the country's terrain. New technologies are shaping up to make it possible for small businesses to serve the people who live in, for example, a struggling rural town in Kentucky that Comcast and Verizon swear they will never even visit. Those small businesses need to have the ability to shape traffic as they see fit to serve their customers, especially low-income customers.
What if they don't want to throttle all videos? What if they only want to dial down cat videos on YouTube and pron while making sure that the local community college's distance learning program's streaming video content gets top priority for users on their network? That's exactly the sorts of decisions that small network providers want to be able to make, and can't.
You do know that net neutral systems are the default and easiest to setup?
They're also the hardest to live with when dealing with things like limited-bandwidth fixed wireless networks in rural areas.
And if a company is trying to set up 201 fixed wireless locations in rural areas with an average of 500 users in each small town location currently getting no service, they're screwed under the current regime.
Leftists have no desire for authority, only to destroy it.
You can't redistribute one person's productive output to other people or centrally manage an economy without authority. If a shameless capitalist wanted to set up shop in your ideal leftist space and start competing with the government-run factories to produce better products, you'd have to have authority to stop them. Leftists cannot bring any of their ideas to bear on other people without authority, and that authority is meaningless without the threat of force. When enough people don't like leftist's idea of the way everyone has to live under their systems, the leftists inevitably have to line people up and shoot them, build walls to trap them inside their paradise, or watch them starve. All of which has always happened when leftists actually get what they want. Leftists, by definition, can only create the environment they call for through the use of authority over other people. It's the very nature of that world view.
Leftism is cooperative, not coercive.
Which is why every large leftist movement resorts to violence to get and maintain power.
Only a totalitarian-minded, nanny state socialist would consider choosing not to forget the 100+ million people that socialists have killed in the last 100 years to "getting dumber." Your definition of being smart is to forget the slaughter that leftists have always committed? Classic. And so predictable.
With net neutrality they aren't allowed to discriminate per government mandate.
No, they are forced by the government to convey things they don't want to. You've got it exactly, perfectly backwards. You want private people and the organizations they build to be forced by the government to give a platform to people with whom they disagree. You want the government to control your own editorial decisions, instead of you doing that according to your own standards. Please don't do things that are dangerous to other people ... like voting. Because you're interested in a powerful, intrusive nanny state, and a lot of people don't want the government even more involved in their day to day lives that they already are.
This seems like a very real consequence of allowing private companies to be gate keepers of the information on the internet, who can choose what content to offer without impunity.
No, that would be a consequence of allowing the government to be the gate keeper. If a private entity wants to have an editorial position on their content, what's not to like? Or are you suggesting that the New York Times should be forced to run every lunatic letter to the editor they receive? Or that NPR should have to use some of their air time to run gay-bashing evangelical crap so that nobody can accuse them of being a "gatekeeper?"
As long as the government isn't stopping you (which would violate the first amendment's protections), YOU can set up your own search engine and run it and not care at all about what makes it to the top of your site's search results. Have at it! As a private entity, you have that right - including the right to make sure that my comments never appear because you don't like them.
Couldn't you use this argument about pedophilia? Or about stolen intellectual property?
No. That's a really nonsensical comparison.
Actual history. The idiotic tiki-torch-carrying wannabes have nothing on socialists when it comes to death. And the socialists are getting coddled, right now, in schools around you.
I think he was being informative, actually. Because the socialists are the ones with the really big death toll on their hands, and they're still given places of privilege in places like US institutions of higher education.
This. People wildly misunderstand the cost of overhead in an operation like Starbucks. They also think that a $5.00 single-scoop ice cream cone is making that shop owner rich.
And yet, SBUX shares are up $1.45 today, and for me, up ~1300% from when I bought some. I don't frequent their stores very often, but apparently a lot of people do. But if you like, say, their French Roast, you can buy big bags of it at Costco for cheap (and it's often on sale for $5 off per bag), and crank out a cup of that dark brew for a fraction of the walk-up costs, and ground/brewed exactly as you personally like it.
If only there were a way to sell spare apostrophes, right? We'd all be rich.
But it's not cities where this is needed. It's the places outside the cities where there's no high speed access of any kind, and never will be if it involves pulling cable/fiber down winding roads in less densely populated areas.
Not sure what the GP was saying ... a grill emblem does NOT cost more to make than ... an airbag assembly. Or a windshield. Or a rear bumper assembly.
People are silly.
Only a dollar, not counting all of the other expenses required to exploit the technique in anything resembling a reliable, portable, battery-feasible practical application.
My SUV runs on lug nuts and body panel rivets that only cost pennies each to manufacture!
No, they're just regular rich people with shared common interests.
And their common interests include throwing their enormous influence, financial horsepower, and the power of their media empires, behind one party's politicians... and then encouraging useful idiots to champion their campaign to maintain a regulation put in place by that party to keep smaller competition from the market. Just regular rich people putting you to work for them. But then, someone like you who is so willing to look at some of the most powerful people in the world and wish away their actions because it would mean even considering that the people you so abidingly, vitriolically, almost fetishitcally hate might have a point about Comcast's interest in keeping compliance-costly Obama regulations in place ... yeah, that's enough to shut down your critical thinking right there. Only takes one little appeal to emotion from those "regular rich people" and you're all over their agenda for them. Good work! I'm sure they really appreciate your efforts on their behalf.
So you've read up plenty, and have concluded that people like Larry Page or Sergey Brin or Jeff Bezos or Obama golf-buddy Brian Roberts or Hillary supporter Lowell McAdam are all right wingers. Gotcha. I can only imagine your sources. Let me guess, the Russians have infiltrated your reading list.
So, indeed, you don't have the energy to read up. I get it. Not having the energy to face reality is also what caused the last election to go the way it did.
Excellent. So, I know you've exhausted yourself typing out that denial. But maybe you can muster the energy to show us some examples of the right-wing policies of these companies. Or, maybe you're too distracted by Dem partisan leanings and support of the owners and boards of directors of those companies? I know, it sucks when your assertions don't match up to reality. But you seem, like so many other lefties, to confuse "large company" with "conservative." Because you like low-brow, childish cartoon versions of bad guys, and you're sure that anyone running a big business must be a Republican because you've been told that both big businesses are bad and Republicans are bad, and so they must be the same thing. Grow up! Spend a little time reading the actual political positions and lobbying support positions taken by and funded by those who run Comcast, Google, Amazon, Facebook and the others whose bidding you're doing by backing their anti-competitive position on Obama's NN edict. I know, too much work for you, especially if it raises the possibility that you'll discover that those companies are run by ardent Democrats. No fun, is it.
When specific types of traffic from just a few huge companies DO burn up almost all of your bandwidth, yes there IS need for prioritizing it. Why do you care if the people who own a network outside Wichita, where thousands of customers have never been able to seen the internet above dial-up speeds, decides to dial back some streaming video traffic from two or three huge corporations so the local community college's distance learning streaming can run without buffering? Is it just the thought of that that makes you so mad you're willing to keep Obama's fiat rule on this in place, rather than supporting actual legislation, instead? Did a small ISP hurt your family once or something? Do you hate the idea of farmers and small companies outside your comfortable suburban existence having access to resources like this? Maybe its farmers you hate so much.
In case you didn't know, that is not a liberal ideal.
Then why are notably liberal companies like Amazon and Google and Comcast 100% invested in that strategy, and talking people like you into helping them out by backing their corporate agenda? Dominance by large corporate entities with government hands in how they run things is EXACTLY what liberals love and stand for. Small businesses providing competing services in an entrepreneurial market is absolutely the opposite of what liberals seek to allow. At every turn. Liberals crave government power of your life, your business, and your daily activities across the board. Nanny-state style intrusion into your affairs - in your own life and especially if you're foolish enough to try to run a small business - is the very hallmark of lefty politics and thinking.
If the government wants to be somewhat helpful in the matter, they could start by outlawing all exclusive contracts that protect the ISPs' monopolies, and also bar them from blocking any competitive services from entering the area, including government services that the people might demand. The internet might become more "neutral" and open as a result.
And yet it's liberal politicians who built up those barriers to entry, and who made them far, far worse over the preceding eight years. So, here comes a new administration looking to reverse the actions of a previous executive (there's no actual LAW involved here - you do understand that, right? just Obama-pen-using to make it so difficult for small businesses to exist and compete), and you're choosing to see the entire situation exactly backwards because you're still not over the fact that during Obama's tenure, Democrats lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, and the good will of millions of two-time Obama voters who grew completely exhausted with that crap and with Hillary's promises to make it even worse.
Scentcone is a traitor posing as a businessman. Just like Donald.
You can always tell you when you've made a valid point because the people who wish it weren't true can't make it past laughable ad hominem right out of some 5th grader's idea of countering a point. Excellent work, thanks for reinforcing what I said. Please keep it up!