The reduced revenue will knock some sense into the greedy republican politicians
Except the greedy giant corporations in question are notably liberal in their politics and support, and it's that handful of giant corporations that's got the vested interest in maintaining a system with compliance costs so high that competition can't get started, even in tiny rural areas where those huge corporations you're shilling for won't bother to invest. Stop shilling for Comcast, shill.
Actually, it is. That's EXACTLY what it is. It's thousands of individual networks - some very large - that are privately owned and are for sale. They're not a natural resource. You don't get to use them for free. They don't HAVE to provide peering relationships to other networks. They have payroll to meet, and other very big overhead expenses. You, on the other hand, feel entitled to free stuff that someone else has to work to create for you. There is nothing "commons" about things that other people invest their own money to build. There's just parasites like you wishing that the government could take away those private networks, charge only rich people taxes to run them, and then give the services for free to you because you're a special snowflake that deserves nationalized services. You should probably move to a place where nationalized seizing of private businesses has worked so well to provide the free creature comforts you feel you deserve for existing. Perhaps Venezuela? They're your perfect role model. Go for it! You'll love how government-controlled internet works for you, there. China's great too, that way - everyone gets the same thing, there. You'll love it.
Talk about "whoosh." I specifically mentioned a scenario where the PROVIDER has limited bandwidth, and has to do what it can to make their network usable DESPITE the fact that interaction with Netflix and Hulu etc would - without any traffic prioritizing - burn up all of their resources. You understand this, you're just pretending you don't because you're rooting for the very large providers, and don't care about the millions of people who can't even get bad DSL. That's fine - just come right out and say it, instead of pretending people don't see right through your little charade.
Why? You're the one who seems obsessed with making sure that only companies the size of Comcast get to provide real service. They've totally played you.
The FCC net neutrality rules never prevented limiting traffic for bona fide network management purposes, they only prevented such things on an inequitable basis (e.g. throttling Netflix, but providing unlimited bandwidth for the provider's own content service).
When you're a provider using, say, fixed wireless... you DO want to pick out destinations/sources like Netflix to throttle because their operation can represent an enormous portion of all of the traffic a provider might be able to carry. Sometimes pushing 90%. So yes, a provider may want to throttle just Netflix, for reasons that go to whether or not they can even stay in business. Or in many cases, they give up trying to start such service businesses because they know that people like you will be there defending a handful of giant corporate content sellers as they swamp such networks.
So, small ISPs in rural areas are not "in reality" the least bit troubled by facing friction with the FCC if they try to manage their very limited resources by not having two or three huge corporations burning up 90% of their bandwidth streaming cat videos?
I see. So, tell me all about your experiences with small local ISPs and how they aren't at all concerned with federal regulations that prevent them from shaping their traffic. Please, get into some details of your familiarity with that topic, rather than just dishing out some lazy ad hominem that directly avoids even touching on the substance of the matter. Looking forward to you saying something actually on the topic, instead of trying to deflect with some juvenile insults.
You don't seem to understand what net neutrality is. Ouch.
Yes, I do. And it is a major roadblock to smaller operators being able to provide internet access to smaller markets where the larger companies will never set foot. The "ouch" part is YOU not understanding how this Obama regulation does that, because you're comfortable in your well-wired little enclave and really don't care enough about fly-over country to worry about why it is millions of people have little better than dial-up internet in 2017. The slamming on of the brakes in that area is a symptom of things like NN. Which you'd know if you did a little homework.
Thanks, Phish fans, for your hipster disdain for those deplorable people in flyover country. You know, the ones that will only ever get usable internet access when small, local ISPs provide it to them. But who can't possibly throw Comcast- or Verizon-sized corporate budgets at the compliance costs of an intrusive regulator regime, and who can't trot out things like fixed wireless solutions with modest backhaul without reserving the right to shape their traffic to best serve their smaller groups of customers at rational prices. Thanks, Phish fans, for doing the bidding of two or three giant corporations! You're the best.
So if you can't get someone to cut your grass well, you'd be willing to spend a million dollars every week to do it? The market economy on wages has to operate in the world as the market economy on what the employer has in the way of actual revenue to work with, as well as the availability of people who will live where they need them, etc. Don't pretend you don't understand that.
Needless to say, the H1-B visa program is regularly abused, and immigration generally is a train wreck.
So, all they care about skills and not actual productivity or work? And everyone who works every day goes to a company and negotiates their wage for the day?
You've never actually own a business, have you? No, didn't think so. You place people in jobs based on their ability to DO THOSE JOBS. I know, this may seem shocking to you.
Having money, and stashing it, gets you nothing. You're not rich. You're a person who owns paper (or, really, electrons). You don't get to "be" rich until you actually buy a huge house that it takes 200 people to build, or a yacht it takes years to complete, or fine wine that someone has to grow and bottle.
False dichotomy. When the economy isn't stagnating from a deathly slow recover (as it's just starting to do with a purpose, because it's being allowed to happen) and rest of the world isn't a significantly better place to set up shop (which it has been for years, with the chance that's finally going to be re-adjusted as should have been done years ago), then you settle on the price for an employee by simply offering money. If what you're offering doesn't get you the quality of employees you need, you offer more money. If you think you're about to lose the quality people you have because your competition is offering more, you pay more still. This isn't exactly mysterious. And the way to make that competition inherently more rewarding for employees is to make the economy heat up. Something they're trying to get done, right now, by confronting the sorts of things that have been killing it.
This is capitalism, where everyone is supposed to be selfish, worry about his own interests, and screw the other.
Your cartoon vision of a market economy is pretty silly. Nobody becomes prosperous by having everyone screw everyone else. Competing for sales, or for better talent to hire, isn't "screwing" anyone, except for those whose world view is that they are entitled to prosperity without having to work for it, and then the sense of being screwed is entirely in their own minds.
They're costing the employer more to route around them, it's having an impact on the employer.
But not as much of an impact as having to turn over the management of the company you've built to labor union bosses. Some costs are more than worth carrying.
If you have a rare and valuable skill, employers will make all kinds of noble gestures towards you.
No, no they don't. They do the exact same thing they do with people who haven't done anything to develop better than entry level labor skills: they let the market decide the compensation necessary to solve their problem. Why do you keep using the word "force?" Unless you mean, "choosing not to work there" is somehow "using force." Neither the employer nor the employee is "forced" to engage with the other. An economy less burdened by crushing taxes and regulatory nonsense provides for more growth in a global economy, and that provides for a the need for more hiring, which is what brings in competitive offers for your time. Nobody is "fighting" in that situation, they're simply making choices.
when workers spend money they tend to spend more of it in ways that put the highest percentage into another worker's pocket (i.e. locally.)
[citation needed]
"Workers" are just like everyone else. They buy what they have to, and if they only have the skills for an entry level job, they're shopping based on price... not to reward the local hipster artisan selling repurposed trumpets as flower vases. Most of their groceries will be cheaper when purchased from a chain with a large delivery pipeline, and that means they're buying at least nationally if not globally. And when those workers need something else, they're doing what the rest of us do, more and more frequently, and shopping online for price and free delivery.
You're right. There isn't a SINGLE reference to which a kid growing up in Chicago could ever be exposed to that would suggest that being a murdering gang-banger is a bad thing.
That's like saying "We only count votes from quality people. The total of the vote doesn't matter."
No, it's not like that at all. It's like saying, "We are a federal regulatory agency making policy decisions, and when we hear new information we think about it, and when we hear the exact same thing said for the seven millionth time, it sheds no new light and isn't any more persuasive in legal or constitutional terms than it was the first time we heard those exact same words from the exact same form letter."
Your call isn't important to the FCC, and they don't care if you know.
Because if your call is you reading from the same form letter that seven million other people have read to them over the phone, your call isn't shining ANY new light on the situation. How are you not getting this?
When the government has a habit of prosecuting those fathers for drug crimes at a far higher rate than other races, then the government can indeed fix it.
By using skin color as a reason to choose NOT to prosecute those fathers even though they are actually involved in crime at a far higher rate than other races? Are you even listening to yourself? I suppose it's possible you think that black people are too dumb not to commit crime, and therefore should be held to a different standard. But that would make you a pretty horrible, racist person.
Here's a thought: don't get arrested for beating people, burglarizing homes, stealing cars, trafficking in stolen opiates and weapons, and more. I know, it's a crazy idea, but it just might work.
Slashdot Mirror
The reduced revenue will knock some sense into the greedy republican politicians
Except the greedy giant corporations in question are notably liberal in their politics and support, and it's that handful of giant corporations that's got the vested interest in maintaining a system with compliance costs so high that competition can't get started, even in tiny rural areas where those huge corporations you're shilling for won't bother to invest. Stop shilling for Comcast, shill.
The internet is not for sale by any pseudo owner.
Actually, it is. That's EXACTLY what it is. It's thousands of individual networks - some very large - that are privately owned and are for sale. They're not a natural resource. You don't get to use them for free. They don't HAVE to provide peering relationships to other networks. They have payroll to meet, and other very big overhead expenses. You, on the other hand, feel entitled to free stuff that someone else has to work to create for you. There is nothing "commons" about things that other people invest their own money to build. There's just parasites like you wishing that the government could take away those private networks, charge only rich people taxes to run them, and then give the services for free to you because you're a special snowflake that deserves nationalized services. You should probably move to a place where nationalized seizing of private businesses has worked so well to provide the free creature comforts you feel you deserve for existing. Perhaps Venezuela? They're your perfect role model. Go for it! You'll love how government-controlled internet works for you, there. China's great too, that way - everyone gets the same thing, there. You'll love it.
Talk about "whoosh." I specifically mentioned a scenario where the PROVIDER has limited bandwidth, and has to do what it can to make their network usable DESPITE the fact that interaction with Netflix and Hulu etc would - without any traffic prioritizing - burn up all of their resources. You understand this, you're just pretending you don't because you're rooting for the very large providers, and don't care about the millions of people who can't even get bad DSL. That's fine - just come right out and say it, instead of pretending people don't see right through your little charade.
Why? You're the one who seems obsessed with making sure that only companies the size of Comcast get to provide real service. They've totally played you.
The FCC net neutrality rules never prevented limiting traffic for bona fide network management purposes, they only prevented such things on an inequitable basis (e.g. throttling Netflix, but providing unlimited bandwidth for the provider's own content service).
When you're a provider using, say, fixed wireless ... you DO want to pick out destinations/sources like Netflix to throttle because their operation can represent an enormous portion of all of the traffic a provider might be able to carry. Sometimes pushing 90%. So yes, a provider may want to throttle just Netflix, for reasons that go to whether or not they can even stay in business. Or in many cases, they give up trying to start such service businesses because they know that people like you will be there defending a handful of giant corporate content sellers as they swamp such networks.
Yes, I am entitled to use the bandwidth I have bought from my ISP to access whatever sites I want.
You just don't want the people who grow your food to be able to use the internet. Because you're special, and they're not.
So, basically you're an entitled urban prick who still can't understand why the election didn't go your way. Amazing how people never learn.
So, small ISPs in rural areas are not "in reality" the least bit troubled by facing friction with the FCC if they try to manage their very limited resources by not having two or three huge corporations burning up 90% of their bandwidth streaming cat videos?
I see. So, tell me all about your experiences with small local ISPs and how they aren't at all concerned with federal regulations that prevent them from shaping their traffic. Please, get into some details of your familiarity with that topic, rather than just dishing out some lazy ad hominem that directly avoids even touching on the substance of the matter. Looking forward to you saying something actually on the topic, instead of trying to deflect with some juvenile insults.
You don't seem to understand what net neutrality is. Ouch.
Yes, I do. And it is a major roadblock to smaller operators being able to provide internet access to smaller markets where the larger companies will never set foot. The "ouch" part is YOU not understanding how this Obama regulation does that, because you're comfortable in your well-wired little enclave and really don't care enough about fly-over country to worry about why it is millions of people have little better than dial-up internet in 2017. The slamming on of the brakes in that area is a symptom of things like NN. Which you'd know if you did a little homework.
Thanks, Phish fans, for your hipster disdain for those deplorable people in flyover country. You know, the ones that will only ever get usable internet access when small, local ISPs provide it to them. But who can't possibly throw Comcast- or Verizon-sized corporate budgets at the compliance costs of an intrusive regulator regime, and who can't trot out things like fixed wireless solutions with modest backhaul without reserving the right to shape their traffic to best serve their smaller groups of customers at rational prices. Thanks, Phish fans, for doing the bidding of two or three giant corporations! You're the best.
So if you can't get someone to cut your grass well, you'd be willing to spend a million dollars every week to do it? The market economy on wages has to operate in the world as the market economy on what the employer has in the way of actual revenue to work with, as well as the availability of people who will live where they need them, etc. Don't pretend you don't understand that.
Needless to say, the H1-B visa program is regularly abused, and immigration generally is a train wreck.
So, all they care about skills and not actual productivity or work? And everyone who works every day goes to a company and negotiates their wage for the day?
You've never actually own a business, have you? No, didn't think so. You place people in jobs based on their ability to DO THOSE JOBS. I know, this may seem shocking to you.
Having money, and stashing it, gets you nothing. You're not rich. You're a person who owns paper (or, really, electrons). You don't get to "be" rich until you actually buy a huge house that it takes 200 people to build, or a yacht it takes years to complete, or fine wine that someone has to grow and bottle.
False dichotomy. When the economy isn't stagnating from a deathly slow recover (as it's just starting to do with a purpose, because it's being allowed to happen) and rest of the world isn't a significantly better place to set up shop (which it has been for years, with the chance that's finally going to be re-adjusted as should have been done years ago), then you settle on the price for an employee by simply offering money. If what you're offering doesn't get you the quality of employees you need, you offer more money. If you think you're about to lose the quality people you have because your competition is offering more, you pay more still. This isn't exactly mysterious. And the way to make that competition inherently more rewarding for employees is to make the economy heat up. Something they're trying to get done, right now, by confronting the sorts of things that have been killing it.
This is capitalism, where everyone is supposed to be selfish, worry about his own interests, and screw the other.
Your cartoon vision of a market economy is pretty silly. Nobody becomes prosperous by having everyone screw everyone else. Competing for sales, or for better talent to hire, isn't "screwing" anyone, except for those whose world view is that they are entitled to prosperity without having to work for it, and then the sense of being screwed is entirely in their own minds.
They're costing the employer more to route around them, it's having an impact on the employer.
But not as much of an impact as having to turn over the management of the company you've built to labor union bosses. Some costs are more than worth carrying.
If you have a rare and valuable skill, employers will make all kinds of noble gestures towards you.
No, no they don't. They do the exact same thing they do with people who haven't done anything to develop better than entry level labor skills: they let the market decide the compensation necessary to solve their problem. Why do you keep using the word "force?" Unless you mean, "choosing not to work there" is somehow "using force." Neither the employer nor the employee is "forced" to engage with the other. An economy less burdened by crushing taxes and regulatory nonsense provides for more growth in a global economy, and that provides for a the need for more hiring, which is what brings in competitive offers for your time. Nobody is "fighting" in that situation, they're simply making choices.
when workers spend money they tend to spend more of it in ways that put the highest percentage into another worker's pocket (i.e. locally.)
[citation needed]
... not to reward the local hipster artisan selling repurposed trumpets as flower vases. Most of their groceries will be cheaper when purchased from a chain with a large delivery pipeline, and that means they're buying at least nationally if not globally. And when those workers need something else, they're doing what the rest of us do, more and more frequently, and shopping online for price and free delivery.
"Workers" are just like everyone else. They buy what they have to, and if they only have the skills for an entry level job, they're shopping based on price
Well, since you were trolling the rest of us by wondering who on earth would ever tell a kid that being a criminal is bad, what did you expect?
You're right. There isn't a SINGLE reference to which a kid growing up in Chicago could ever be exposed to that would suggest that being a murdering gang-banger is a bad thing.
That's like saying "We only count votes from quality people. The total of the vote doesn't matter."
No, it's not like that at all. It's like saying, "We are a federal regulatory agency making policy decisions, and when we hear new information we think about it, and when we hear the exact same thing said for the seven millionth time, it sheds no new light and isn't any more persuasive in legal or constitutional terms than it was the first time we heard those exact same words from the exact same form letter."
Your call isn't important to the FCC, and they don't care if you know.
Because if your call is you reading from the same form letter that seven million other people have read to them over the phone, your call isn't shining ANY new light on the situation. How are you not getting this?
When the government has a habit of prosecuting those fathers for drug crimes at a far higher rate than other races, then the government can indeed fix it.
By using skin color as a reason to choose NOT to prosecute those fathers even though they are actually involved in crime at a far higher rate than other races? Are you even listening to yourself? I suppose it's possible you think that black people are too dumb not to commit crime, and therefore should be held to a different standard. But that would make you a pretty horrible, racist person.
Here's a thought: don't get arrested for beating people, burglarizing homes, stealing cars, trafficking in stolen opiates and weapons, and more. I know, it's a crazy idea, but it just might work.