So who here wants the government to rule the internet

The courts have decided. You just want the courts to be ignored.

 

they decided and things had to be changed, they have been, now it will be tested in the courts again

 

I'm not sure what that even means, other than how I described your beliefs before, which is basically screw the law, the heart wants what the heart wants.

 

Assuming Comcast et al will regulate the internet (a real stretch and hardly believable), I will take those multiple regulators than the government any day.

On the Patriot Act, all politicians, D and R, supported it, except for Russ Feingold, the lone Senate dissenter to the first Patriot Act vote.

And despite the whining, Democrats not only continue the PA but expand it.

As always, its not Republican vs Democrat, its you vs the State.

 

At least you know what's going on.. People are fed up with Comcast's gouging the consumer and their day is OVER.

 

The internet is modern day infrastructure, it is not cable TV. It is a necessity for students, it is a necessity at my job, hell it's a necessity at any job that requires research. It is a necessity for business communications as well as personal communications. It is a avenue of news reporting, globally, in real time. It's not that silly little AOL chat room anymore. The way I see it there are two options; A heavily regulated industry similar to energy sector which prevents them from screwing people for their provided infrastructure, or there needs to be a breakup of local monopolies so that there is actually competition in the sector. You cannot have city sized monopolies and expect the owner to play fair. It just doesn't happen that way, not in our modern world of quick profits and "(*)(*)(*)(*) the customer what are they going to do, leave? Where would they go?". There is a reason Comcast is so successful yet is hated by its customers; they flat out have no other real choice to purchase what has become modern day infrastructure.

 

It's a legal issue. I've read your posts on other threads, so that's all I have to say to you about it.

 

Everyone already has "enough" free access to it, and there the analysis ends. It's as if you could go to the library and get all your electricity, heat, AC, or gasoline needs for free. It's not a road, and it's not a utility. Anyone who says it is has a burden of proof to meet that is IMO impossible to meet.

 

Apparently your mind is made up, you somehow think going to the library to access the internet is reasonable. I'm assuming you are old, have no kids, and do not need to use the net for your business, because there is no way in hell you could not see the internet as essential if you are living in the modern world. Guess you don't need power either, after all we got by without power for thousands of years.

 

Well that along with wifi and the Comcast welfare program I cited, don't leave those out. We have fine and dandy access, speed and expense in the US. Have you ever considered you are being duped by the government and sold a nonissue to crook you into getting deeper into your wallet via taxes and regulation?

Now you are just being silly and fallacious.

 

No, because I think for myself. We do have access, if you have the money. $60 is a lot of money when you're not making a lot of money. That however is not the point. Comcast and other cable providers have local monopolies where they are the only choice in town for reasonable internet speeds. Localized resource monopolies are a problem, as evidence by the fact that they are now using their local monopolies to attempt to take money from content providers, while of course offering their own services without the same limits they threaten to put on others. I understand what is going on here and it is exactly why we have laws against monopolies to begin with. Either break up the monopolies or regulate the industry, but it cannot be made to just sit and do what it wishes with internet access knowing that the consumer has no other real option.

It's not like I'm jumping up and down for the government to come regulate the internet, I'd much rather it be hands off and we simply have 3 or 4 providers to choose from. At that point yeah let Comcast provide their version of the internet, I'll go elsewhere. As is I don't have that choice. No one else offers internet at a reasonable speed in my city. Most cities are this way. You have one option, and if that option decides to (*)(*)(*)(*) you there's nothing you can do.

I'm proving a point. You seem to think the internet is just a toy. It is not. It is a necessary part of my daily life as a software engineer. It is a necessary part of a students life. In fact if you want to get ahead at all you'd better have the net and know how to use it. I wouldn't have my job today were it not for me posting my resume on CareerBuilder and Monster.com. I wouldn't have the programming experience I have today were I not able to download free versions of Visual Studio and watch video tutorials as well as research multiple sites for information. That you think library access somehow makes up for internet in your house shows you don't realize how important the internet really is in the daily life of many people not just in the US but around the world.

 

it means the courts decided and that they had to go back to the drawing board and go it it from a different perspective, they had to re-write the bill, that happen all the time

kinda like Abortion is legal, but republicans keep trying different methods to accomplish their goals of passing laws to control women's bodies

.

 

This is simply not the case. Every school, college, library, church, social club, restaurant, store, etc. offers free wifi or broadband at perfectly reasonable speeds to do anything on the net that is necessary. The only people complaining about speed and cost being inadequate are those who a) play GAMES like MMOs and shooters online, indisputably a LUXURY; b) DL/UL whole movies, large videos, torrents, scads of pictures, again LUXURY. That's what this is really about, groups of net overusers hoping govt will step in and make their massive data usage cheaper, don't bother denying it. It ain't gonna happen. Those who have some vision of unlimited DL/UL terrabytes an hour, gaming all day, etc., while paying a pittance a month under govt regulation for their luxurious use of the net are going to be sorely disappointed. So spare the "drowning in high costs for reasonable speed" appeal, it's transparent. Try painting a country full of poor schoolkids waiting an hour while their homework loads on slow dialup elsewhere.

LOL. It's chicken feed generally, and especially compared to the benefit captured. If on welfare, sign up for $10 a month from Comcast under their program. If not on welfare, do something called MAKE TRADEOFFS. The government is not competent or capable to give everyone every little luxury they want in life, high speed internet is indisputably a LUXURY, and trying to claim super-fast internet connections are a "civil right," a public utility, or in the domain of rational government powers is a nonstarter.

No, they most certainly do not have a monopoly on providing -reasonable- internet speeds. There may be an oligopoly on the HIGHEST internet speeds IN THE HOME, but nothing you can walk into any McDonalds or library and get all you want FOR FREE can ever be considered a "monopoly." Again., "reasonable" is checking email, basic surfing and searching, social media, MAYBE online applications suites, but that's IT as far as "reasonable" use of the internet, and ALL that is completely workable via significant competition.

Moreover, as also linked and utterly ignored in the thread, technology is always improving provided we don't tax and regulate it into the ground. We are reasonably close to LiFi, but if we start regulating the internet itself as a utility, and allow the filthy, incompetent, corrupt hands of the gov-Complex into it, who knows what debilitating and COMPETITION REDUCING effects this could have on new technology and innovation? I posit it would be SIGNIFICANT. Why not wait for just a few years to get the next round of innovation? We haven't exactly been in a -stagnant- net technology environment EVER, have we? FFS, my net in 94 cost $150 a month dialup and it took A MINUTE for a browser to load. 20 years later, well, no need to delineate the difference. 20 more years, who knows? WHY F_CK WITH WHAT WORKS? ESPECIALLY BY INVOLVING CRAPPY, LYING, THIEVING GOVERNMENT?

Yes they do, you just have a warped, somewhat privileged perception of what is "reasonable speed." Let me guess, are you an online gamer?

Spare me the strawfield.

Great, nice $500 suits and $100 a month in DRY CLEANING are a "necessary part of my daily life as a lawyer," perhaps you'd like to subsidize mine with your tax dollars? Paying $60 a month for something you can then charge out for well over a hundred dollars an HOUR as part of your WORK somehow doesn't get my pity juices flowing.

Yeah, that's why all schools and colleges provide it already... at discounted volume prices they get from "monsters" like Comcast. Anything a student needs the internet at home for can be done via a number of low cost alternatives. OTOH, want to play the hot new MMO and DL dubstep tunes and movies for your IPOD all day? Well then they can pay for the necessary LUXURY just like anyone else.

Oh, so your EMPLOYER pays for your software engineering internet access that is "necessary to your work?" LOL, good for you. And it doesn't take blazing speeds to use Monster.com, try again.

It's simple, want high speed in your house? IT'S A LUXURY, probably the CHEAPEST luxury ever in the history of mankind on a "bang for buck" scale. Want adequate internet? plenty of cheaper alternatives there.

 

There is no bill. That's the point. There is no legal basis to give the FCC this authority, and they couldn't even get when the Dems were running things. So this is yet another lawless power grab.

 

guess we wait and see if the new rules are allowed by the courts or not

as long as the internet is carry phone calls, that would seem to put them under the control of the fcc

last time some of the rules were ok by the court, some not, so my guess is they dropped the parts that were not

you cell calls will soon be voip too

.

 

I don't really have an answer to that. If it seems perfectly reasonable to you for the administration to ignore the law and do whatever they want, then the consensus that makes this country work is breaking down. If one side obeys the law, and then the other side decides law is for nerds, then we can expect to have a lot of social and political chaos as our system breaks apart.

 

Repeating yourself does not make your point.

The Forbes article was careful not to point out the Netflix was routing through Cogent and others in order to avoid being forced to pay a premium.

The throttling problem with Comcast went away as soon as Netflix caved into Comcast's demands.

But you didn't read taht in Forbes.

That's the kind of internet you're going to get, if you get your way. Comcast and their ilk will turn it into cable TV, and you'll pay variable prices for different content.

 

Doesn't matter. These people don't care and they are very good at manipulating people into giving them what they want.

They are petty tyrants after all, when the government sets its sights on something it wants. it will not take no for answer, at least not without a fight. And even they lose they will still keep on trying to get what they want. Law is just a tool for them to entrench themselves in and protect themselves from us peons that they pee on.

like how we got Obamacare.

They really don't give a damn about us either. It's all about what they want, and what they want is power, control, and money.

 

Such nonsense!

The internet is a luxury?

What kind of a law practice do you have anyway??????? Turn off the internet, or go dial up and see what happens.

Your claim that free wifi is everywhere is false. It isn't.

And it doesn't exist at all in places where there is no other high speed internet access. Which is still a surprisingly large part of this country, nearly all of it rural.

 

Well here's something to think about...

The same company that owns MSNBC also owns Comcast, a major internet provider. Imagine the shenanigans.

 

So I'm not going through all this, you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. You seem to think that dialup is somehow a reasonable speed. You seem to think that the ability to stream videos is a luxury, despite the fact that there is a great deal of educational videos out there. My friend, a grade school science teacher, uses the internet as part of his curriculum. It allows him to keep parents informed, allows kids to download assignments if they forgot or lost them, allows them to research the links he provides (including videos), it's part of his class. At my job I am expected to watch videos, which the company pays for, in order to improve my programming skills. I got my degree online which again, videos. My friend is doing the same thing and again, videos. Just because the internet also provides entertainment does not mean it does not provide other items. It's not my fault you are too short sighted to understand. Privileged, yeah no it's called necessary in todays world. Next you'll be talking about how people don't need phones or addresses or even an apartment. After all what's wrong with staying at the homeless shelter right?

Fact is the internet is not a luxury, it is a necessary part of our infrastructure, well unless you want to work at McDonalds or the local coal mine. Welcome to the year 2015.

 

It's the other way around. Comcast bought NBC, and now it want AOL Time Warner.

The conservatives here have all been busy defending their monopoly power using simplistic free market rhetoric.

 

Too bad they can't understand the difference between the free market and a local resource monopoly. It's also too bad that some people don't seem to understand the value of the internet and think you only need high speed if you play games or watch netflix.

 

we've already seen what Comcast wants to do with the internet. And you want to broadn that for them so they can throttle down whatever sites they want to?

 

cable want to sell you web site bundles, get access to 2000 web pages for 29.99 a month, and extra for the web pages everyone wants like Netflix

never-mind that accessing those sites is free today... no addl fees from the ISPs

cable companies took the ISP market over by storm, now the catch 22 is that their cable monopoly is threatened by the internet.... they want to stop that

websites like Hulu, Netflix and Amazon prime are threatening their cash cow.....

.

.