The Title II rules wouldn't have applied to that, as the FCC explicitly declined to intervene in cases like that. From their rationale:
As discussed, Internet traffic exchange agreements have historically been and will continue to be commercially negotiated. We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to subject arrangements for Internet traffic exchange (which are subsumed within broadband Internet access service) to the rules we adopt today.
Do you have another example?
I already paid Verizon to give me access to the internet (up AND down) at set speeds, they don't get to then charge the content provider that I have specifically requested content from another fee.
What part of "Net Neutrality" don't you understand? If content providers and residential customers are equal, they're going to be paying the same rates for the same kinds of pipe. And lo and behold, if I want a dedicated pipe, regardless of who I am or what content I'm dealing with, it's gonna cost an arm and a leg.
Who pays who and how much is based on supply and demand, not anybody's ideology of what should be free. It's why sometimes I have to pay to rent a room for special events, and other times people pay me to show up to do effectively the same event.
Full scale anarchy is the only truly 'free' market. I.e. whatever I want to do is justified since I want to do it.
No, freedom implies rule of law.
Too many libertarians and other supposedly 'free market' proponents conveniently forget the role regulations play in creating a level playing field...like net neutrality.
The Internet has been fine up to now without FCC intervention. Why does a hypothetical situation that hasn't even happened yet justify giving the FCC more power, in clear violation of congressional statute? (An ISP is clearly an Information Service, not a Telecommunication Service. Why would congress define an Information Service is nothing is going to fall under it?) Given the FCC's past behavior, this should be terrifying.
So you admit there was plenty of regulation and oversight, certainly no decrease.
There's no single cause to the Great Depression, however the Federal Reserve was perhaps the single biggest: Beginning in about 1920, they inflated the money supply using various manipulations of the interest rate and reserve requirement, combined with other legislation that made it artificially easy to secure credit. From the beginning to the end of the decade, the money supply increased about 60%. i.e., the number of dollars in circulation increased 60%, despite little increase in the gold supply (which, at the time, is supposed to be the reserve currency).
Entrepreneurs, over this decade (the "Roaring Twenties"), were enticed into securing credit for businesses when there was no corresponding increase in savings. This means by the end of the decade, there was large amounts of capital producing output that that no one had the savings to buy. The firms turn unprofitable and go under, and the bubble pops.
But this routinely happens: The reason it became the Great Depression was five terms of presidents all whom increased taxes and illegally micro-managed businesses into oblivion. For example, the NRA was a truly horrific program where people went to jail because for charging prices that were too low.
tl;dr The kinds of capital that actually existed wasn't allowed to be transformed into the kinds of capital that could produce products that people were actually able to buy.
Because Title II was specifically written to apply to phone service, and the Internet does not fall under that, but an Information Service.
The FCC, enemy #1 of technological freedom for the past decade, is single-handedly defying the statutory definition of Information Service for no other reason than they can assume power, reasons of which they can't even explain except as a hypothetical.
There is no current or previous Internet problem that the adopted rules would have fixed, which makes you wonder "Just what the hell is it doing?!?"
You mean the Great Depression that happened from 1-3 decades after the Federal Reserve was created, and the Income Tax was imposed, and tariffs were greatly increased?
As discussed, Internet traffic exchange agreements have historically been and will continue to be commercially negotiated. We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to subject arrangements for Internet traffic exchange (which are subsumed within broadband Internet access service) to the rules we adopt today.
Netflix-Cogent-Comcast was a gross peering mismanagement.
Which ended up in faster speeds after it was resolved, mind you.
I don't think I've heard this before, that's kind of incredible.
Why was the United States so successful?
Why is Hong Kong so much more prosperous than mainland China?
Can you explain away the sudden increase in output of New Zealand and Switzerland?
Why is China implementing more private property protections and cheap business startups? (They're also dumping massive amounts of money into fruitless projects, mind you, an area that has clearly failed, e.g. the world's largest shopping mall, and it's completely empty.)
It's impossible to 100% fully implement any ideology, but looking on a scale, economically free countries, almost uniformly, are more prosperous.
The FCC explicitly declined to regulate peering agreements and backbone connections.
In any event, there was no singling out of Netflix specifically, they just were the majority of the traffic over that particular, badly-managed peering agreement.
Title II is in effect because the ISPs decided to not play nice with their customers. If everyone liked Comcast, for example, instead of calling it the absolute worst company in customer service, we would never be here.
I don't recall seeing the section in the FCC regulations where ISPs would have to provide better customer service.
If you can find it, by all means, point it out.
The days of the mom-and-pop ISP with direct personal service and "organic growth" of the Internet has been over for more than a decade.
So?
And what has taken their places are large customer-fucking entities with abysmal customer service and that absolutely refuse to upgrade infrastructure but instead put caps on use to deal with the demand.
Internet capacity has been growing exponentially for decades, and isn't showing any signs of slowing.
And for that they demand ever higher payment.
Average Internet cost per megabit is going down.
Even if it were going up, how does Title II Internet help? It doesn't.
This is after we threw billions at them to install last-mile fiber that they never installed, but instead handed out to the shareholders.
In the People's Libertarian Paradise of Concord, NH, we have exactly *two* "broadband" providers, both of which suck massively, one of which doesn't even offer broadband as currently defined (=>25Mbps).
Except it does seem to work in practice. If you think it's wrong, you need to find some alternative way to explain how the most economically free countries tend to be the most prosperous, and how the effect seems to be causal (e.g. that striking a new oil well doesn't end up increasing GDP after it closes, but repealing tariffs does).
This still wouldn't have been enough to support FCC action, but the ISPs got greedy. They saw Google, Netflix, and others making money online and thought "people are using our connections to buy stuff so why doesn't some of that money go to us?!!!" (Completely ignoring that some does in the form of ISP service bills.) They tried to charge companies extra to reach customers via "fast lanes" lest their data be regulated to an unusable slow lane.
Can you point out what part of their 400-page report would have fixed this?
Because it doesn't.
"Net Neutrality" has changed from the "end-to-end principle" to "whatever particular people have with their Internet, regardless of the actual cause". And shocker: FCC did little to nothing except add ability to micro-manage networks.
Did you read the FCC rationale for Title II Internet? No where does it cite any prior problem that it could have prevented, only hypothetical scenarios that could happen sometime in the future. THAT sounds like FUD to me.
"Marking HTTP As Non-Secure" is exactly the kind of thing being argued against. TFA is saying that TLS is not a cure-all, and that the 40% or so of page loads that go over plaintext will just train users to ignore the security warning altogether, even when it's a legit MITM attack on TLS. Wonderful!
Why should I provide a citation? I provided the citations the last 20 times you said this same exact drivel just a few days ago. But you didn't pay attention then, and I doubt you will now. If you truly care that much and just happened to miss them (several times in a row) try your post history. ---
This is a public discussion, i.e. a discussion in the public. For the benefit of me and everyone, I shouldn't need to dig up old conversations on other threads.
In any event, I don't recall any very convincing sources.
When you act in the public market you are no longer acting as a private citizen, but as a public accommodation. you are offering goods and services in exchange for money, be it a motel, restaurant, lawyer, or bakery.
"public accommodation" is very narrowly defined. It does not imply that business is anything but private. Business is by definition only conducted between two parties. No other party is involved.
define:business: noun 1. a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade. 2. the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce.
People do not lose their rights just because they get into business. Saying "you didn't have to go into business, you asked for it" is called victim blaming. That is not OK.
No person ever, in the formation of capital, in their employment, or otherwise, agreed that they could be compelled to serve another person. When the Constitution protect's someone's rights, it doesn't say "People shall have the right to..." no, it says "Congress shall make no law." Not no laws about people, or corporations, or certain races. No law.
a private citizen acting in a private manner has religious freedom. his business does not.
A sole proprietor is a private citizen acting in a private manner.
If you do yard work for pay, sell cookies from your own kitchen, or are hired by an employer, that's all sole proprietor business: It goes on your form 1040.
And denying services for discriminatory reasons IS illegal and is not a thought crime.
Pray tell, how am I supposed to prove said "reason" that another business declined me service? They don't have to tell the truth.
You're criminalizing the act of having a bad reason for declining someone's service. Deciding different punishments for the same action, based on a person's purported beliefs, is a violation of due process. The court decided "separate but equal" was unconstitutional a long time ago, catch up to modern times please.
The basic protected classes established under Federal Law are
Note the distinct lack of sexual orientation.
In addition some states and cities have recognized other protected classes in addition to the these. For ex, in Washington DC (and a few states) you cannot discriminate on the basis of political ideology.
So it would be illegal for a Jewish bakery to decline catering for neo-nazis. Just the sort of thing I want the state doing in my name....that last sentence there was sarcasm.
First, you have to be engaging in interstate exchange, as opposed to intrastate exchange.
Second, and more importantly, contracts made under duress are null and void. Even when it's the state that is forcing agreement.
e.g. You can't order a photographer to show up at an arbitrary wedding, and dictate what you'll pay them when they refuse to quote a price.
And allow me to quote what you said:
If I walked into a bakery and legally compelled them to bake a cake depicting a same-sex couple that they don't want to bake... aren't I the one imposing my values?
Are you going to answer that question or not? (I'm looking for a "Yes, I'll answer with this: I concur/dissent because...")
People don't lose their rights just because they get into business.
No one is obligated to provide any reason for denying service. So what you're really proposing is criminalizing certain reasons for saying "no". We have another name for that: thought crime.
Also: I never mentioned any particular "value", you're the one who read "homesexuality" into that.
Slashdot Mirror
You're new to this conversation, but you seem to know me. Would you like to introduce yourself?
I just described how our common law system works, and you call it "obtuse". I don't even.
Go back to grade-school-level civics class, the part where they teach about checks and balances, maybe.
The Title II rules wouldn't have applied to that, as the FCC explicitly declined to intervene in cases like that. From their rationale:
As discussed, Internet traffic exchange agreements have historically been and will continue to be commercially negotiated. We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to subject arrangements for Internet traffic exchange (which are subsumed within broadband Internet access service) to the rules we adopt today.
Do you have another example?
I already paid Verizon to give me access to the internet (up AND down) at set speeds, they don't get to then charge the content provider that I have specifically requested content from another fee.
What part of "Net Neutrality" don't you understand? If content providers and residential customers are equal, they're going to be paying the same rates for the same kinds of pipe. And lo and behold, if I want a dedicated pipe, regardless of who I am or what content I'm dealing with, it's gonna cost an arm and a leg.
Who pays who and how much is based on supply and demand, not anybody's ideology of what should be free. It's why sometimes I have to pay to rent a room for special events, and other times people pay me to show up to do effectively the same event.
Which the Title II rules fix... how?
Which ongoing behavior was happening that they put an end to? I count... nothing.
The Internet was never "regulated". It's an interconnected network of computers, each privately owned.
If what was happening was actually illegal, as you claim, how did the courts fail such that the FCC needs to take action instead?
First, extortion is illegal. You don't need the FCC for that.
Second, the FCC Title II rules fixes this how, exactly?
Do tell me why, then, an Information Service was even defined if nothing was supposed to be classified under it.
Even the name ISP sort of gives it away: Information Service Provider
Full scale anarchy is the only truly 'free' market. I.e. whatever I want to do is justified since I want to do it.
No, freedom implies rule of law.
Too many libertarians and other supposedly 'free market' proponents conveniently forget the role regulations play in creating a level playing field...like net neutrality.
The Internet has been fine up to now without FCC intervention. Why does a hypothetical situation that hasn't even happened yet justify giving the FCC more power, in clear violation of congressional statute? (An ISP is clearly an Information Service, not a Telecommunication Service. Why would congress define an Information Service is nothing is going to fall under it?) Given the FCC's past behavior, this should be terrifying.
So you admit there was plenty of regulation and oversight, certainly no decrease.
There's no single cause to the Great Depression, however the Federal Reserve was perhaps the single biggest: Beginning in about 1920, they inflated the money supply using various manipulations of the interest rate and reserve requirement, combined with other legislation that made it artificially easy to secure credit. From the beginning to the end of the decade, the money supply increased about 60%. i.e., the number of dollars in circulation increased 60%, despite little increase in the gold supply (which, at the time, is supposed to be the reserve currency).
Entrepreneurs, over this decade (the "Roaring Twenties"), were enticed into securing credit for businesses when there was no corresponding increase in savings. This means by the end of the decade, there was large amounts of capital producing output that that no one had the savings to buy. The firms turn unprofitable and go under, and the bubble pops.
But this routinely happens: The reason it became the Great Depression was five terms of presidents all whom increased taxes and illegally micro-managed businesses into oblivion. For example, the NRA was a truly horrific program where people went to jail because for charging prices that were too low.
tl;dr The kinds of capital that actually existed wasn't allowed to be transformed into the kinds of capital that could produce products that people were actually able to buy.
I don't really think extortion is covered by Title II.
There's existing laws for that, anyways.
Because Title II was specifically written to apply to phone service, and the Internet does not fall under that, but an Information Service.
The FCC, enemy #1 of technological freedom for the past decade, is single-handedly defying the statutory definition of Information Service for no other reason than they can assume power, reasons of which they can't even explain except as a hypothetical.
There is no current or previous Internet problem that the adopted rules would have fixed, which makes you wonder "Just what the hell is it doing?!?"
You mean the Great Depression that happened from 1-3 decades after the Federal Reserve was created, and the Income Tax was imposed, and tariffs were greatly increased?
That Great Depression?
Nope, from the 400 pages of rules and rationale:
As discussed, Internet traffic exchange agreements have historically been and will continue to be commercially negotiated. We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to subject arrangements for Internet traffic exchange (which are subsumed within broadband Internet access service) to the rules we adopt today.
Netflix-Cogent-Comcast was a gross peering mismanagement.
Which ended up in faster speeds after it was resolved, mind you.
I don't think I've heard this before, that's kind of incredible.
Why was the United States so successful?
Why is Hong Kong so much more prosperous than mainland China?
Can you explain away the sudden increase in output of New Zealand and Switzerland?
Why is China implementing more private property protections and cheap business startups? (They're also dumping massive amounts of money into fruitless projects, mind you, an area that has clearly failed, e.g. the world's largest shopping mall, and it's completely empty.)
It's impossible to 100% fully implement any ideology, but looking on a scale, economically free countries, almost uniformly, are more prosperous.
The FCC explicitly declined to regulate peering agreements and backbone connections.
In any event, there was no singling out of Netflix specifically, they just were the majority of the traffic over that particular, badly-managed peering agreement.
Name a behavior that Title II regulations would have stopped.
Because the FCC can't even name any.
Title II is in effect because the ISPs decided to not play nice with their customers. If everyone liked Comcast, for example, instead of calling it the absolute worst company in customer service, we would never be here.
I don't recall seeing the section in the FCC regulations where ISPs would have to provide better customer service.
If you can find it, by all means, point it out.
The days of the mom-and-pop ISP with direct personal service and "organic growth" of the Internet has been over for more than a decade.
So?
And what has taken their places are large customer-fucking entities with abysmal customer service and that absolutely refuse to upgrade infrastructure but instead put caps on use to deal with the demand.
Internet capacity has been growing exponentially for decades, and isn't showing any signs of slowing.
And for that they demand ever higher payment.
Average Internet cost per megabit is going down.
Even if it were going up, how does Title II Internet help? It doesn't.
This is after we threw billions at them to install last-mile fiber that they never installed, but instead handed out to the shareholders.
In the People's Libertarian Paradise of Concord, NH, we have exactly *two* "broadband" providers, both of which suck massively, one of which doesn't even offer broadband as currently defined (=>25Mbps).
How does Title II Internet help? It doesn't.
I went to Sperry's twitter page.
The amount of Libertarian derp is stunning.
Didn't bother with the other author.
They call this an ad hominem. Don't bother with it.
Except it does seem to work in practice. If you think it's wrong, you need to find some alternative way to explain how the most economically free countries tend to be the most prosperous, and how the effect seems to be causal (e.g. that striking a new oil well doesn't end up increasing GDP after it closes, but repealing tariffs does).
This still wouldn't have been enough to support FCC action, but the ISPs got greedy. They saw Google, Netflix, and others making money online and thought "people are using our connections to buy stuff so why doesn't some of that money go to us?!!!" (Completely ignoring that some does in the form of ISP service bills.) They tried to charge companies extra to reach customers via "fast lanes" lest their data be regulated to an unusable slow lane.
Can you point out what part of their 400-page report would have fixed this?
Because it doesn't.
"Net Neutrality" has changed from the "end-to-end principle" to "whatever particular people have with their Internet, regardless of the actual cause". And shocker: FCC did little to nothing except add ability to micro-manage networks.
Did you read the FCC rationale for Title II Internet? No where does it cite any prior problem that it could have prevented, only hypothetical scenarios that could happen sometime in the future. THAT sounds like FUD to me.
All in the name of expanding FCC power, mind you.
"Marking HTTP As Non-Secure" is exactly the kind of thing being argued against. TFA is saying that TLS is not a cure-all, and that the 40% or so of page loads that go over plaintext will just train users to ignore the security warning altogether, even when it's a legit MITM attack on TLS. Wonderful!
Why stop at "black"? It doesn't feel right for anything:
How do you negotiate a price? You're obligated to provide the provide a product, why not at $10k? Why not at zero?
What if the good isn't of sufficient quality? Can you demand a refund too?
There's a term for this: It's called duress, and it produces null and void contracts.
Why should I provide a citation? I provided the citations the last 20 times you said this same exact drivel just a few days ago. But you didn't pay attention then, and I doubt you will now. If you truly care that much and just happened to miss them (several times in a row) try your post history.
---
This is a public discussion, i.e. a discussion in the public. For the benefit of me and everyone, I shouldn't need to dig up old conversations on other threads.
In any event, I don't recall any very convincing sources.
When you act in the public market you are no longer acting as a private citizen, but as a public accommodation. you are offering goods and services in exchange for money, be it a motel, restaurant, lawyer, or bakery.
"public accommodation" is very narrowly defined. It does not imply that business is anything but private. Business is by definition only conducted between two parties. No other party is involved.
define:business: noun
1. a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade.
2. the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce.
People do not lose their rights just because they get into business. Saying "you didn't have to go into business, you asked for it" is called victim blaming. That is not OK.
No person ever, in the formation of capital, in their employment, or otherwise, agreed that they could be compelled to serve another person. When the Constitution protect's someone's rights, it doesn't say "People shall have the right to..." no, it says "Congress shall make no law." Not no laws about people, or corporations, or certain races. No law.
a private citizen acting in a private manner has religious freedom.
his business does not.
A sole proprietor is a private citizen acting in a private manner.
If you do yard work for pay, sell cookies from your own kitchen, or are hired by an employer, that's all sole proprietor business: It goes on your form 1040.
And denying services for discriminatory reasons IS illegal and is not a thought crime.
Pray tell, how am I supposed to prove said "reason" that another business declined me service? They don't have to tell the truth.
You're criminalizing the act of having a bad reason for declining someone's service. Deciding different punishments for the same action, based on a person's purported beliefs, is a violation of due process. The court decided "separate but equal" was unconstitutional a long time ago, catch up to modern times please.
The basic protected classes established under Federal Law are
Note the distinct lack of sexual orientation.
In addition some states and cities have recognized other protected classes in addition to the these. For ex, in Washington DC (and a few states) you cannot discriminate on the basis of political ideology.
So it would be illegal for a Jewish bakery to decline catering for neo-nazis. Just the sort of thing I want the state doing in my name. ...that last sentence there was sarcasm.
First, you have to be engaging in interstate exchange, as opposed to intrastate exchange.
Second, and more importantly, contracts made under duress are null and void. Even when it's the state that is forcing agreement.
e.g. You can't order a photographer to show up at an arbitrary wedding, and dictate what you'll pay them when they refuse to quote a price.
And allow me to quote what you said:
If I walked into a bakery and legally compelled them to bake a cake depicting a same-sex couple that they don't want to bake... aren't I the one imposing my values?
Are you going to answer that question or not? (I'm looking for a "Yes, I'll answer with this: I concur/dissent because...")
[Citation Needed]
People don't lose their rights just because they get into business.
No one is obligated to provide any reason for denying service. So what you're really proposing is criminalizing certain reasons for saying "no". We have another name for that: thought crime.
Also: I never mentioned any particular "value", you're the one who read "homesexuality" into that.