OT: Net Neutrality
November 21st, 2017 at 10:03 PM ^
You're so much smarter than this. Come on.
November 21st, 2017 at 9:07 PM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 2:23 AM ^
As for mobile, you do realize they’re being bought up by all the ISPs right? They all know that mobile is the only way forward. They control the mobile web as well. Good luck
November 21st, 2017 at 9:19 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:20 PM ^
make a statement or win something? Can't wait for next year. Who dreamed that schedule up? Ok. Move on to 5th year with everyone else getting better.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:31 PM ^
technology puts a lot of power in the hands of a small number of people. This is a recipe for disaster somewhere down the road.
November 21st, 2017 at 7:39 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:51 PM ^
Because in many markets, internet providers have a virtual monopoly, they DON'T have to compete. If there was actual competition, I agree with you that things would be much better.
Hell, when Google came into some markets, they drove internet prices way down and speeds way up. But Google is pulling out now, and thinigs are back to being monopolies or duopolies with one choice being just awful in many markets again.
November 21st, 2017 at 8:08 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 9:32 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 7:57 PM ^
Moms should probably delete this thread.
November 22nd, 2017 at 6:53 AM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 8:37 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 9:18 PM ^
And, yes, that means I trust corporations (regardless of size) more than I trust government entities.
(Comment written on phone conceived, designed and manufactured by a very large corporate entity...not by a government entity.
I'm kinda put off by this railing against "big evil corporations when we are all benefitting from them in amazing ways....the government, not so.
November 21st, 2017 at 9:41 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 10:38 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 10:54 PM ^
I could point to the numerous examples involving what we eat, the air we breathe, and how safe we are at work as to why you’re wrong, but it’d be too far long a post.
This is kind of old, but it's my favorite example.
PS I just wanted to add that the internet was created as a government project.
November 24th, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^
Nice Straw-man.
I'm not advocating anarchy -or absolutely zero governmental oversight.
Of course there are ~some~ things that the Government needs to do. However, acknowledging that there are some things that the government needs to do over against private industry (and even there, some of those things are debatable) does not mean that it is necessary for the government to do ALL things...nor does it necessarily indicate that the government would better handle the things that ~you~ want to want the government to handle. The fact remains: in general, the goverment is incredibly innefficient compared to private industry.
Furthermore, throwing out "Net Neutrality" does not mean that there will be absolutely no governmental oversight over the internet.
The fact that the FCC imposed Net Neutrality in the first place kind of indicates that they do. In other words, I'm not stating that the FCC has no ~authority~ to impose "Net Neutrality", I'm simply stating it's a bad idea that holds back freedom and progress.
November 21st, 2017 at 11:33 PM ^
Seeing as how the decision on net neutrality will be made by unelected government regulators.
November 24th, 2017 at 1:17 PM ^
...since Net Neutrality was originally enacted by unelected government regulators. The fact that former FCC chair Wheeler kept his Net Neutrality plan hidden from public view until after the FCC vote in 2015 lends more credibilty to my statement re: unelected government regulators.
In contrast, current FCC chair Pai has already released his plan to the public.
November 21st, 2017 at 9:32 PM ^
Go Blue!
November 21st, 2017 at 10:05 PM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 10:27 PM ^
it is my considered opinion that Net Neutrality was a terrible idea and should be wiped away. Infrastructure is expensive. New technologies are disruptive. Early adopters pay through the nose, and the rest of us sign up when technologies become commodities. Competition drives prices down, and government involvement is the bane of competition. It's not like we're talking about drugs, or how much steel should go into the foundations of our skyscrapers. A, for the most part unregulated, internet has demonstrated the economic benefit of competition and technical innovation and, speaking from personal experience, has grown in ways that all the experts, the very people that NN would place as a gateway, never expected nor believed was possible.
November 21st, 2017 at 11:29 PM ^
While healthy competition often drives prices down, unregulated competution often does not. Take, for example, railroads and oil before anti-trust legislation. These have a lot in common with ISPs, in the sense that they are capital intensive. So by definition you just don't get a lot of players in that field--and in many areas, particualrly outside large population centers, there is only one or at most two ISPs.
The result is a cartel, the dynamics of which stimulate price rises and a lack of investment in R&D. This is what we can look forward to now that net neutrality is gone.
November 22nd, 2017 at 12:28 AM ^
Your notion that NN constitutes some heavy-handed government regulation is the exact opposite of reality. Net neutrality is simply the government placing limits on what ISPs can do to throttle a public utility for their own benefits.
It's like saying that the fact that we have potable water to drink within the city limits of Ann Arbor is completely unrelated to the fact that it is a public utility that's regulated by the government. As for those living in certain areas of the Ann Arbor area, ask them whether they are fine with Pall-Gelman doing what it wanted, or would have preferred a greater, not lesser, amount of government regulation.
November 22nd, 2017 at 7:19 AM ^
November 21st, 2017 at 10:35 PM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 12:13 AM ^
net neutrality is coming to an end
and with it will come the end of my internet use.
mankind has existed for tens of thousands of years without internet access
we don't need it
however until that time comes I'm going to watch as much pr0n as i can
November 22nd, 2017 at 12:18 AM ^
Blaming the totality of "the government" for Citizens United is like blaming your foundation when it's invaded by termites.
It's bizarre that people here are one moment asserting that all government everywhere has been captured by the corporate political interests that were behind Citizens United, and then turning around and saying that government is inherently more authoritarian than corporate interests so we should let the latter control things the way they want.
It's almost like people are completely unaware of the Progressive Era, which was characterized by governmental efforts to restrain and break up the corporate monopolistic trusts of that era, as well as far-reaching civil service reform that sought to eliminate the "spoils system" which had traditionally awarded all civil service jobs to those who followed the winning political party of the moment.
The notion that all government is inherently evil and that we should let those kindly, generous businesses and corporations have their way without interference because "businesses always run things better" is just as much nonsensical codswallop as the fantasy that cutting taxes to the bone directly leads to increased revenue. The people in Kansas are now experiencing the wonders of that philosophy.
The notion that "the government" in the United States is nothing but jackbooted thugs seeking to confiscate your guns and drag Grandma off to the death panels is a ridiculous myth pushed and perpetuated by those who hate government regulation of any kind, regardless of the public interest or the issues involved. It's those same antigubbermint loons who were shitting their pants a couple of years ago about Jade Helm in Texas.
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:25 AM ^
Industry stooge Ajit Pai will be handing over complete control of the internet to ISPs and at the same time is telling local units of government that they can't do shit about it.
This would be exactly the same thing as Trump's EPA announcing that states may not engage in any regulatory activity of industry.
"In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service.
This detail was revealed by senior FCC officials in a phone briefing with reporters today, and it is a victory for broadband providers that asked for widespread preemption of state laws. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the US government's policy of deregulating broadband Internet service, FCC officials said. The FCC will vote on the order at its December 14 meeting."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-…
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:31 AM ^
The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on a plan that, according to Chairman Ajit Pai, will strip away regulations that prevent telcos from upgrading their networks.
But in doing so, the Republican-controlled FCC plans to eliminate a requirement that telcos provide Americans with service at least as good as the old copper networks that provide phone service and DSL Internet. The requirement relates to phone service but has an impact on broadband because the two services use the same networks.
As carriers like AT&T and Verizon turn off copper networks throughout much of the country, many people fear that the networks won't be replaced with fiber or something of similar quality. That's why the FCC in 2014 created a "functional test" for carriers that seek permission to abandon copper networks. In short, carriers have to prove that the replacement service is just as good and provides the same capabilities as what's being discontinued.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fccs-latest-gift-to-telcos-…
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:49 AM ^
No surprise Pai is a stooge. Dude even looks like a tool.
Funny how state rights go out the window when Republicans wanna bend over for corporations.
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:41 AM ^
A Federal Communications Commission decision to eliminate price caps imposed on some business broadband providers should be struck down, advocacy groups told federal judges last week. The FCC failed to justify its claim that a market can be competitive even when there is only one Internet provider, the groups said.
Led by Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC's Republican majority voted in April of this year to eliminate price caps in a county if 50 percent of potential customers "are within a half mile of a location served by a competitive provider." That means business customers with just one choice are often considered to be located in a competitive market and thus no longer benefit from price controls. The decision affects Business Data Services (BDS), a dedicated, point-to-point broadband link that is delivered over copper-based TDM networks by incumbent phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink.
But the FCC's claim that "potential competition" can rein in prices even in the absence of competition doesn't stand up to legal scrutiny, critics of the order say.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/fccs-claim-that-one-isp-cou…
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:44 AM ^
In his ongoing push to get rid of net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai claimed this month that the rules caused capital investment in wireless networks to drop in 2016. But in doing so, Pai hasn't addressed data from earlier years that doesn't fit his anti-net neutrality narrative.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/in-anti-net-neutrality-push…
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:47 AM ^
The Federal Communications Commission has ignored a public records request for information that might shed light on the legitimacy of comments on Chairman Ajit Pai's anti-net neutrality plan, according to a lawsuit filed against the FCC.
Freelance writer Jason Prechtel filed a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request on June 4 asking the FCC for data related to bulk comment uploads, which may contain comments falsely attributed to people without their knowledge. But while the FCC acknowledged receiving his FoIA request, it did not approve or deny the request within the legally allotted timeframe, Prechtel wrote in a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/fake-net-neutrality-comment…
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:53 AM ^
"Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed."
https://medium.com/@AGSchneiderman/an-open-letter-to-the-fcc-b867a76385…
November 22nd, 2017 at 2:01 AM ^
It's got a Republican majority and industry stooge Pai is making sure the ISPs will get what they want. What's comical about some of the anti-NN comments here is that the FCC is going to give untrammelled freedom to companies like Comcast—which is routinely and rightly castigated here on MGoBlog when a relevant topic is brought up.
In other words, some people are so pant-crappingly skeered of any gubbermint regulation of any sort that they're completely comfortable with turning control over the provision of their porn to one of the most hated companies on the planet. Good luck with that.
November 22nd, 2017 at 2:48 AM ^
Good thread... I hope it doesn't get nuked... freedom first... then politics...
November 22nd, 2017 at 6:31 AM ^
Just ask our Founding fathers.
November 22nd, 2017 at 11:35 AM ^
Don't even start with the founding fathers. Let's go to the founding mothers.
George didn't cut down a cherry tree either btw.
It's freedom of information ...not political freedom we are talking about. Unfortunately neither really exist. The first though is the best start toward the second.
November 22nd, 2017 at 3:40 AM ^
November 22nd, 2017 at 8:15 AM ^
Pretty much this thread boiled down to what I thought it would. One side providing evidence, some from the ISPs themselves, for how being anti-NN is actually a bad thing aka the majority of people here. Other side just saying government is bad with pseudo-libertarian philosophy mumbo jumbo about government and no tangible proof on how NN lowers profitability and innovation.
Good debates regardless and wouldn’t expect any less from MGoBlog.
November 22nd, 2017 at 8:37 AM ^
Question on Net Neutrality (I'm scared to ask Reddit, lol). If a few sites (Netflix, Youtube, ESPN, Hulu or whatever) use say 50% of the badnwidth shouldn't they be subjected to a "fee" from the ISP, kind of like a toll?
In other words, if somebody is going to use say 50GB/ month streaming 4K shows, shoudn't somebody (either the user or the content provider pay the ISP? Maybe priority isn't bad)?
My other question, is what likely happens to smaller sites, like MGo? Thanks!
November 22nd, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^
Here's what's happening in Portugal where there is no Net Neutrality. Providers have started to divide up websites into packages. Some smaller stuff gets dropped off altogether or extremely throttled.
Instead of MGoBlog you'll get a message stating you need to purchase some Sports Blog Plus Package.
November 22nd, 2017 at 1:39 PM ^
this is why Brian/ MGoBlog should finally care about politics?
That's a question, because he's been quiet on Net Neutrality, so why should I care?
November 22nd, 2017 at 9:24 AM ^
Just eliminate ISP geographic monopolies and watch how fast the internet becomes.
That said this iteration of Net Neutrality was just a favor done to Big Data (Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.) on behalf of supporting certain politicians. Big Data is the the majority of internet traffic and I don't see anything wrong with them being asked to pay a little more for using up all the bandwidth.
If you want to move towards the internet being regulated like a utility prepare to pay for data you consume. With water, gas, electric you pay for what you actually use, not what the capacity that can be delivered to you is. People think terabyte data caps are bad, just wait for the price of internet to be quoted as a dollar amount per gigabyte.
That said, I'm loving the new policy of allowing politics on the blog! /s
November 22nd, 2017 at 10:18 AM ^
You're not allowed to scream "fire" in a theater also, unless of course, there's actually a fire.
November 22nd, 2017 at 5:17 PM ^