We're screwed. Court rules against net neutrality.

[Modelworks]

You know, this is an incredibly sensible and logical idea. I can't find any fault in it whatesoever, except for one thing: it involves government doing something, no matter how small a thing it is. Since it is axiomatic that no government anywhere, at any time in human history, has ever done anything correctly, I must assume for some reason that this idea is doomed to failure.

- wolf

The state utility commission already regulate power lines and cities regulate cost of water and sewer lines. The reason electric companies cannot charge $1 /KW is because the state utility commission set a rate of return. Same needs to be done for local internet lines.

 

[shira]

Government has never invented anything technological in nature. It may have funded some research which lead to a discovery, but the government itself is incapable of inventing anything.[/QUOTE0

So the Manhattan project didn't invent the atomic bomb?

 

[Double Trouble]

You know, this is an incredibly sensible and logical idea. I can't find any fault in it whatesoever, except for one thing: it involves government doing something, no matter how small a thing it is. Since it is axiomatic that no government anywhere, at any time in human history, has ever done anything correctly, I must assume for some reason that this idea is doomed to failure.

- wolf

That's not quite true. Occasionally due to unintended consequences, government actions lead to good things

The reality is that government funding can lead to a lot of good things, but government inherently has no competition, and we know what lack of competition does to efficiency and service....

 

[Nemesis 1]

Did anyone believe that it would go any other way . 3 judges were probably easily bought. Government workers are so lucky . They get fair wages and bribes.

 

[cubby1223]

This is all ridiculous anyways.

The only people who ever seem to argue for net neutrality are of either one of two mindsets: (1) all corporations are evil / all profit is evil, or (2) nobody better ever take away my right to piracy! If I want to download 10 full length movies in a day without paying for it, that is my right to do so.


It's like they want the government to come in and control the tubes, then as an afterthought coming up with the reasons why. Hmmm, doesn't that strike anyone as, I don't know, odd?

 

[JSt0rm]

can yall just go out and buy 1 dvd or go see 1 film. please?

 

[cubby1223]

Did anyone believe that it would go any other way . 3 judges were probably easily bought. Government workers are so lucky . They get fair wages and bribes.

*sigh*

...this country is a lost cause

You really think with all the vocal groups lobbying for Net Neutrality, that the judges would be able to get away with accepting bribes and no one finding out about it? If they were bribed, then prove it. Else, try to use some common sense.

 

[Craig234]

A corporation has never invented anything technological in nature. It may have funded some research which lead to a discovery, but a corporation itself is incapable of inventing anything.

Funny how that works. (Fixed)

 

[guyver01]

So... do you really, really believe that congress will give any authority to the FCC to tell Cable Companies what to do? With all the money cable lobbyists give to congress?

Congress just blew their political load on the healthcare reform bill.

they're not going to fight something like this.

 

[CycloWizard]

So the Manhattan project didn't invent the atomic bomb?

No, it didn't. A bunch of people gathered together under its umbrella of funding to contribute their ideas to the project. Read a patent and see what it says under "Inventors:" it's the name(s) of individual(s) who contributed substantially to the invention. The patent is usually granted to the funding organization (the assignee), but the organization doesn't have a brain, can't contribute ideas, and, therefore, is incapable of inventing anything.

Sample patent:
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/IntroPat.pdf/$file/IntroPat.pdf

 

[CycloWizard]

Funny how that works. (Fixed)

I never said they had, strawman. If you were able to understand the difference between a person and an organization (e.g. "government" or "corporation"), you might see where I was coming from. Instead, you just proved my point completely by accident.

 

[her209]

This is all ridiculous anyways.

The only people who ever seem to argue for net neutrality are of either one of two mindsets: (1) all corporations are evil / all profit is evil, or (2) nobody better ever take away my right to piracy! If I want to download 10 full length movies in a day without paying for it, that is my right to do so.

Government already controls content on the Internet and it deems that content illegal. Its just a matter of enforcement.

 

[DanDaManJC]

This is all ridiculous anyways.

The only people who ever seem to argue for net neutrality are of either one of two mindsets: (1) all corporations are evil / all profit is evil, or (2) nobody better ever take away my right to piracy! If I want to download 10 full length movies in a day without paying for it, that is my right to do so.


It's like they want the government to come in and control the tubes, then as an afterthought coming up with the reasons why. Hmmm, doesn't that strike anyone as, I don't know, odd?

and what? you want to transform the internet into something akin to xbox live's marketplace? pay for each set of content? it's not about whether or not a corporation is "evil" it's just the straight fact that those with money will end up getting the most publicity because they'll actually be able to pay for that tiered service. the interests of those with the money don't always align with the common good.

thanks to the freedom on the internet we have sites like the drudgereport that will break the Lewinsky story even when the big wigs wont and so on. while currently drudge is pretty much on the same level of any other media, the wonder of the net was that this single guy, without corporate sponsorship, was able to get this big. having to pay a fee of entry would make this a bit tougher.

in the end my biggest fear would be the creation of a tiered internet that would transform the internet into something like TV rather than the openness of the current system. If we had a true free market where I could legitimately choose between several different ISPs I wouldn't think the FCC would or should do anything. But as it currently stands, outside major cities, there are monopolies with broadband internet.

 

[BoberFett]

Correct. If government does it, everyone pays for it, not just people who use it.

While technically correct, the last mile is one of those pesky problems that is best handled by government similar to water and sewer. I can't fathom having competing sewer pipes, and I doubt you can either. If the people of a community choose, they should be able to own the lines from the CO to their homes, and then the providers can compete from there. If said community votes that they only want dialup speed then the majority have spoken. Same goes if the majority wants fiber.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

I don't see how giving the FCC more power is a good thing. You somehow think they won't just use it to sell power and income opportunity like every other power the government has. Name something they don't take advantage of. Exactly. They even have these huge "bailouts" now so they can just openly show to the world which companies they are in it with. They cut the check in public view with your money.

The same free market where companies are granted monopolies by the government?

Do you fruitcakes have any idea what the words you use even mean or do you just randomly choose them from the Democrat Talking Point of the Day memo?

I don't get it. People think that a system ruined by government regulation has to be solved with government regulation. Tell g-man to GTFO and the industry would go nuts. Companies would fight to get you better service so they would get your business, we'd all have better than cable internet right now. We'd have all had fiber optics like 5 years ago because there wouldn't be so many barriers to getting it out to us. They can't just lay down the service, they have to fight through government bureaucracy for months to get permission to go to a new area, and pay stupid taxes the whole way. Big business strives through regulation, the little guy has too many barriers to succeed. And anti-corporation types somehow magically ignore that the reason big companies can get so big is because the government hands it to them.

This is outrageous. Cable companies have government sanctioned monopolies on these things. To get rid of the monopolies, we need to lower the barrier of entry, which means lower regulation. Get rid of regulation, flood the country with low cost cable providers, and watch comcast cry.

Overnight. Over fucking night.

Huh? It pays for itself.

Right, through magic. Because when they open up an expensive system in a town where nobody wants it, and they bill the one guy that does his $30 a month... the rest of the money just appears. It's magic! Also, nobody can build anything slower or more expensively than the government. They can fly an order of magnitude above the cost of anybody else without trying.

*sigh*

...this country is a lost cause

You really think with all the vocal groups lobbying for Net Neutrality, that the judges would be able to get away with accepting bribes and no one finding out about it? If they were bribed, then prove it. Else, try to use some common sense.

Have you been in a court of law? They're run by the government. Go sit through a trial sometime. See if you can manage to not walk over to a judge or prosecutor and vomit on them. They openly make up laws and lie, every fucking day. They say they can make up laws, then when somebody brings it up, they say they didn't. Sotomayor said she does it, in public, on video. What punishment did she get for openly admitting to corruption and illegal persecution of American citizens? Right to SCOTUS.

 

[Modelworks]

I don't see how giving the FCC more power is a good thing.

Any power the FCC appears to have is an illusion. The corporations own it, write the rules and decide what gets done.

I don't get it. People think that a system ruined by government regulation has to be solved with government regulation. Tell g-man to GTFO and the industry would go nuts. Companies would fight to get you better service so they would get your business, we'd all have better than cable internet right now. We'd have all had fiber optics like 5 years ago because there wouldn't be so many barriers to getting it out to us.

Very wrong. Look of the history of the internet in the USA. The worst thing to ever happen to communications here was to remove the regulation. Right after the breakup of ATT there was a limit in place that only allowed the companies to charge cost + a controlled profit % . Internet comes along in the early 90's and what happens ? All these telecoms go to congress with promises that they will provide every home in the country with fiber to the home by 2004 but they have a problem. They can't do it with those annoying price controls in place, they need those profits to fund the development. Congress caves under the hundreds of ad campaigns talking about 400 tv channels , video phones, and 45Mbps both ways to everyone. Telecoms get the price controls removed. Right after that happens the same companies announce that now they are postponing the installations of these new high speed networks. They start charging $4 for things like caller id when it only cost them $.05 to provide it and nobody gets what they were promised.

Regulation is necessary sometimes and the current state of internet in the USA is proof of what happens when you completely remove it. Want to see a total disaster ? take power lines and cost off the price control regulations that states provide. You will be spending $10 /KWH and have no choice but to pay it or sit in the dark.

Right, through magic. Because when they open up an expensive system in a town where nobody wants it, and they bill the one guy that does his $30 a month... the rest of the money just appears. It's magic! Also, nobody can build anything slower or more expensively than the government. They can fly an order of magnitude above the cost of anybody else without trying.

Under separation they cannot open an expensive system in a town where nobody wants it. That is the beauty of the system. Want your city to have faster connections ? Then the users there can agree to pay more or they can keep what they got. The government doesn't build or own anything. They merely make sure that the local loop stays open to anyone wanting to use it and that the prices charged to maintain it are controlled.

Guess what happens if you implement separation of the local loop ? The whole concept and need for net neutrality goes away, no more an issue because if I don't like what my current ISP is implementing , like no torrents, I can go to another one.


Currently consumers in the USA are getting screwed yet again by corporations with deep pockets.

 

[Dulanic]

This is all ridiculous anyways.

The only people who ever seem to argue for net neutrality are of either one of two mindsets: (1) all corporations are evil / all profit is evil, or (2) nobody better ever take away my right to piracy! If I want to download 10 full length movies in a day without paying for it, that is my right to do so.


It's like they want the government to come in and control the tubes, then as an afterthought coming up with the reasons why. Hmmm, doesn't that strike anyone as, I don't know, odd?

This is my opinion of odd:

1.) Comcast will be within their right to limit my VOIP service in order to push their own digital voice package that is more expensive.
2.) This expands the monopoly known as the massive cable companies. I have one choice in broadband, Comcast. It's not like if they start limiting services, I can just jump to the next cable company. I don't have access to DSL, I have 0 other feasible choices.
3.) Comcast can now limit my access to movie streaming and TV streaming sites to push for me to pay for more expensive cable packages. They can limit my bandwith to Netflix movies which in turn makes it look like shit so that I instead pay for it on their services.

Do I believe Comcast will do some of these things? Damn right they will. Just give them the time to implement the hardware to do so. I could completely see them becoming the new Great Firewall. Do I hate Comcast? Damn right I do. They limit the services they offer to cut their costs until a competitor moves in proximity and threatens to offer services, then MAGICALLY their internet speed doubles. Hmmm wonder why that happened? Magical isn't it.

I would agree with people saying Comcast is free to do what they want, except for the fact that they have already been allowed to lock in a Monopoly in A LOT of regional areas.

I mean hell, Microsoft gets fined left and right just for making their browser the default browser on THEIR own OS. But Comcast would realisitically be allowed to block all trafic based on what program the person was using. But that is OK, I mean Comcast has extra money to line politicians pockets anyways so why worry about it.

Afterall... Microsoft is a monopoly right? Sirius/XM was held up for over a year because it was a monopoly because terrestrial radio said so! But yet Comcast is allowed to regulate and limit my access to the free knowledge and information in the rest of the world. I don't care if it is a movie, a documentary, a phone call, a TV show. Comcast is allowe to do what they want and how they want it. They could force VOIP companies basically out of buisness by blocking access to them. They could attempt to throw elections if they so wished by blocking access to certain news. Will they go that extreme? Probably not, but they are allowed to if they so wish. So anyone who doesn't see this as a issue with free speech and freedoms has blinders on.

 

[Anubis]

This is my opinion of odd:

1.) Comcast will be within their right to limit my VOIP service in order to push their own digital voice package that is more expensive.
2.) This expands the monopoly known as the massive cable companies. I have one choice in broadband, Comcast. It's not like if they start limiting services, I can just jump to the next cable company. I don't have access to DSL, I have 0 other feasible choices.
3.) Comcast can now limit my access to movie streaming and TV streaming sites to push for me to pay for more expensive cable packages. They can limit my bandwith to Netflix movies which in turn makes it look like shit so that I instead pay for it on their services.

Do I believe Comcast will do some of these things? Damn right they will. Just give them the time to implement the hardware to do so. I could completely see them becoming the new Great Firewall. Do I hate Comcast? Damn right I do. They limit the services they offer to cut their costs until a competitor moves in proximity and threatens to offer services, then MAGICALLY their internet speed doubles. Hmmm wonder why that happened? Magical isn't it.

I would agree with people saying Comcast is free to do what they want, except for the fact that they have already been allowed to lock in a Monopoly in A LOT of regional areas.

I mean hell, Microsoft gets fined left and right just for making their browser the default browser on THEIR own OS. But Comcast would realisitically be allowed to block all trafic based on what program the person was using. But that is OK, I mean Comcast has extra money to line politicians pockets anyways so why worry about it.

Afterall... Microsoft is a monopoly right? Sirius/XM was held up for over a year because it was a monopoly because terrestrial radio said so! But yet Comcast is allowed to regulate and limit my access to the free knowledge and information in the rest of the world. I don't care if it is a movie, a documentary, a phone call, a TV show. Comcast is allowe to do what they want and how they want it. They could force VOIP companies basically out of buisness by blocking access to them. They could attempt to throw elections if they so wished by blocking access to certain news. Will they go that extreme? Probably not, but they are allowed to if they so wish. So anyone who doesn't see this as a issue with free speech and freedoms has blinders on.

good post, this is what most of us fear, we arnt bitching because they might block P2P, its because shit like this really might happen

 

[Dulanic]

good post, this is what most of us fear, we arnt bitching because they might block P2P, its because shit like this really might happen

Exactly, you know how much P2P I have used? Ummm let's see.... to download the WoW patches! LOL, excessive usage I know!

 

[daishi5]

You know, this is an incredibly sensible and logical idea. I can't find any fault in it whatesoever, except for one thing: it involves government doing something, no matter how small a thing it is. Since it is axiomatic that no government anywhere, at any time in human history, has ever done anything correctly, I must assume for some reason that this idea is doomed to failure.

- wolf

Is this not a proposal that closely resembles how our current power grid is regulated?
I admit that I don't know much about our power grid, but I thought one power plant's failure brought down the entire eastern seaboard. I also thought the stimulus plan included a lot of money for the grid because its current state is hampering our ability to compete.

 

[JTsyo]

Government has never invented anything technological in nature. It may have funded some research which lead to a discovery, but the government itself is incapable of inventing anything.

Explain this. Just a random one I picked. But anything that's developed by US employees while at the job belongs to the US government and there are plenty of government employees (especially in defense).

An other:
Patent 4,647,773

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Any power the FCC appears to have is an illusion. The corporations own it, write the rules and decide what gets done.




Very wrong. Look of the history of the internet in the USA. The worst thing to ever happen to communications here was to remove the regulation. Right after the breakup of ATT there was a limit in place that only allowed the companies to charge cost + a controlled profit % . Internet comes along in the early 90's and what happens ? All these telecoms go to congress with promises that they will provide every home in the country with fiber to the home by 2004 but they have a problem. They can't do it with those annoying price controls in place, they need those profits to fund the development. Congress caves under the hundreds of ad campaigns talking about 400 tv channels , video phones, and 45Mbps both ways to everyone. Telecoms get the price controls removed. Right after that happens the same companies announce that now they are postponing the installations of these new high speed networks. They start charging $4 for things like caller id when it only cost them $.05 to provide it and nobody gets what they were promised.

Regulation is necessary sometimes and the current state of internet in the USA is proof of what happens when you completely remove it. Want to see a total disaster ? take power lines and cost off the price control regulations that states provide. You will be spending $10 /KWH and have no choice but to pay it or sit in the dark.





Under separation they cannot open an expensive system in a town where nobody wants it. That is the beauty of the system. Want your city to have faster connections ? Then the users there can agree to pay more or they can keep what they got. The government doesn't build or own anything. They merely make sure that the local loop stays open to anyone wanting to use it and that the prices charged to maintain it are controlled.

Guess what happens if you implement separation of the local loop ? The whole concept and need for net neutrality goes away, no more an issue because if I don't like what my current ISP is implementing , like no torrents, I can go to another one.


Currently consumers in the USA are getting screwed yet again by corporations with deep pockets.

Somehow all of these things you say will happen if we deregulate telecomm have never happened in any unregulated industry in the history of this country. And yet the opposite has happened every time.

 

[ElFenix]

Explain this. Just a random one I picked. But anything that's developed by US employees while at the job belongs to the US government and there are plenty of government employees (especially in defense).

An other:
Patent 4,647,773

maybe you should read the thread before posting complete failure again.

Have you been in a court of law? They're run by the government. Go sit through a trial sometime. See if you can manage to not walk over to a judge or prosecutor and vomit on them. They openly make up laws and lie, every fucking day. They say they can make up laws, then when somebody brings it up, they say they didn't. Sotomayor said she does it, in public, on video. What punishment did she get for openly admitting to corruption and illegal persecution of American citizens? Right to SCOTUS.

we've got a live one here!

 

[werepossum]

The FCC would simply say "you cannot do this". When proof came out that ISP's were indeed doing that, they would be required to stop it. Similar to what happened with the P2P issue. How is this not obvious?

And you rely on the benevolence of Government to not overstep its bounds? Seems to me one very important function of the FCC would be to prevent people from breaking the law - probably the very reason most proponents of net neutrality are pushing it in the first place. Demanding that the same government charging with enforcing IP laws also prevent the ISP's from impeding your "right" to break those laws seems somewhat shortsighted at best.

They could just get rid of local monopolies and then net neutrality wouldn't even be a topic. If 20 companies own the last mile to my home and one wants to change terms I just switch to another I like better. The way it is now the carriers own everything up to your modem and if you don't like their service then do without.

The solution has been around for years now but lobbyist keep it from happening.
The line connecting our homes needs to be made a utility, managed by state and local utility laws where the only role would be to maintain the line. Those lines would then be leased to anyone wanting to use them so people could choose between 10 other companies. That is why other countries are cheaper not because they are smaller like many people say. The only role government would have is making sure the maintenance was performed and that their was no favoritism giving one provider better rates than another. The government would not be providing content, filtering or monitoring anything but how much the local city charged for the lines up keep.

Want fiber to your home, then your local city could ask the people their if they are willing to pay for an increase to provide it. Net neutrality is moot because now if one provider decides to block traffic for video I can switch to another. No need for it.

Whether Google or government, breaking a monopoly on broadband is a good thing. (Although I do not believe broadband, or even access to broadband, is a right.) Locally it was handled a bit differently. Our local Electric Power Board, a separate non-profit agency of the city of Chattanooga established in the thirties to provide electrical service to the area, is in the process of running fiber optics to EVERY EPB customer's home. This cost was subsidized by the EPB (via electricity revenues) because they use it in conjunction with smart meters to largely eliminate meter readers, a big expense for an electrical utility. The EPB then offers broadband, television, and telephone services to every electrical customer. This isn't as good as more widespread competition, obviously, but it will give every EPB customer access to broadband at a reasonable, competitive price. Most have a choice of three (EPB, Comcast Cable, and AT&T) providers for phone, broadband Internet, and television, in addition to satellite providers. This works pretty well too because the cost of each service is paid by its subscribers and the government service essentially competes with two private for-profit companies, government's inherently higher costs competing with for-profit companies' need to make a profit. As a separate non-profit agency the EPB has neither requirement nor authority to regulate content, although of course they could cap bandwidth or charge a premium if they think some high-use customers are driving up the cost for others - which is essentially no difference from charging businesses different rates for different bandwidth needs. It's a good thing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Explain this. Just a random one I picked. But anything that's developed by US employees while at the job belongs to the US government and there are plenty of government employees (especially in defense).

It says right on the patent:
Inventors: Gonzalez; Noel (Oviedo, FL), Hartman; Daniel J. (Orlando, FL), Rouse; William G. (Haure De Grace, MD), Malecki; Raymond J. (Perry Hall, MD), Morgan; Paul W. (Altamonte Springs, FL)

You are simply personifying the government, ascribing ideas to something other than the mind.