Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Net Neutrality thread of this shit is too political for the reg lounge

Net Neutrality thread of this shit is too political for the reg lounge (Page 6)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2015, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why can't i do both?
Because it weakens your argument: In this instance, it's a Republican-led effort, and assigning blame to the Democrats just makes you sound like »The others are doing it, too!«
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2015, 10:33 AM
 
It's actually "the others don't do anything at all", congressional Democrats are the most unfocused group of tits you could possibly imagine. That's something I can appreciate, because that means they usually can't decide on a damned thing, leaving the economy alone, but that becomes a serious problem when we actually need something from them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2015, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Because it weakens your argument: In this instance, it's a Republican-led effort, and assigning blame to the Democrats just makes you sound like »The others are doing it, too!«
Again... his response wasn't to "Republicans are against Net Neutrality". The statement in question was made to wider-ranging allegations.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2015, 02:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Again... his response wasn't to "Republicans are against Net Neutrality". The statement in question was made to wider-ranging allegations.
Maybe I misread it then, I thought he was just commenting on the latest R-led effort. Besides, I agree that it's a »bipartisan problem«, but if you see yourself on one side of the aisle, IMO you should strive to be harsher on »your side«.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2015, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Maybe I misread it then, I thought he was just commenting on the latest R-led effort. Besides, I agree that it's a »bipartisan problem«, but if you see yourself on one side of the aisle, IMO you should strive to be harsher on »your side«.
You see, I think you've got the isles all wrong. My response wasn't just to the latest headline. The isles are "you and I" vs "the ruling class in congress and big business". You have to have an awfully short memory on the issue to really believe the dems want NN because it's the best thing for the citizens of this country.

The idea that either the republicans or the democrats sitting in congress and advocating for you while ignoring the past 10 years of both political climate & the net neutrality itself is laughable, IMO. Now that the dems cannot pass anything through congress they take up the cause?

The dems had all the opportunity in the world to solidify NN into law, controlling the presidency and both houses at times. It wasn't like there weren't a whole lot of groups pushing for that either. It only became an issue for them when the dems lost both houses. The dems failed to do it and not by accident. Comcast still donates a shit-ton of money to the DNC (as well as the RNC) and they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2015, 07:06 PM
 
Aisles?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2015, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Aisles?
It's been a minute since I've been to the store
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2015, 10:51 PM
 
I'd also like to add:

These regulations, though a very good thing for NN, do not even begin to address the problems we've had in the market for some time now. This is a minor victory in the fight for a free internet. Comcast is still both a content delivery system and an ISP, which no matter how many regulations we throw at them will still produce anti-competitive results. These regulations could lead to some of that being stopped, but the problems with the ISPs and their utter lack of competition will still remain with these regulations or without. I see this as a minor victory at best, and I'm afraid that the issue will lose awareness once the NN regulations kick in.

Comcast, AT&T, Verizon et al will continue to be an abusive oligarchy. Comcast will still find ways to screw us. The public investment in the infrastructure will never be paid back nor will the ISPs live up to their end of the bargain.

What we need is a total overhaul of the telecommunications act to account for the internet itself - one that has strong NN provisions and sets up a regulatory framework that encourages competition - unlike what we have today.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You see, I think you've got the isles all wrong. My response wasn't just to the latest headline. The isles are "you and I" vs "the ruling class in congress and big business". You have to have an awfully short memory on the issue to really believe the dems want NN because it's the best thing for the citizens of this country.
I don't have a short memory, because I agree with you (just look at my previous posts here and in the Lounge thread). I just read your reply more narrowly as pertaining to the latest incident only, something which you meant differently and I accept. Nevertheless, I think if you associate yourself with one party, then the best you can do for net neutrality is to dispel myths: Some of the Republicans should not falsely equate NN with Big Government overreach, i. e. the base should be clear in communicating to the higher-ups that being against NN is not a virtue. And Democrats should be reminded that while they were in power they did nothing to advance net neutrality even though it was one of Obama's campaign promises.

The big elephant in the room, of course, are campaign contributions and how money warps the whole political process — but if we go down that rabbit hole, we leave the topic of NN behind us. Sadly, I think the best chance we have is that the big IT companies wake up and learn all the wrong lessons from Comcast (and the only reason why we are lucky in this case is that the people's interests align more closely with that of Apple's, Google's, Facebook's and Microsoft's in this instance). Maybe members of Congress will adjust when they realize the relative size of the IT industry vs. the »content + IP« industry.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'd also like to add:

These regulations, though a very good thing for NN, do not even begin to address the problems we've had in the market for some time now. This is a minor victory in the fight for a free internet. Comcast is still both a content delivery system and an ISP, which no matter how many regulations we throw at them will still produce anti-competitive results.
Yup. And I think critics of NN have a point when they say that the laws NN is currently based on were invented in a time when the internet in its current form wasn't even born yet. But of course, the reason NN proponents are against changes in laws is that they fear (quite understandably) that the new regulations would be worse.

I agree with you that in principle content and content delivery should be two different, independent entities, because this disentangles interests. In Germany you saw similar beneficial effects when power companies were forced to split in two, one company that was solely concerned with power generation, another solely concerned with the power grid. We see a rejuvenation of competition, because big power companies cannot deny smaller players access to the grid. Ditto for cell networks.

Honestly, I think the source of disruption will not come from changes in regulations, but changes in customer behavior. The old triple play model is slowly losing traction: many people my age don't have a landline phone or a traditional TV, I certainly don't. Eventually that'll come back to haunt Comcast et al.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 11:36 AM
 
I was thinking about this the other day and one solution would be to ban all direct candidate and political party donations over $1,000, including donations to PAC groups. You can still make larger political donations, that's fine, but that money is pooled together and distributed evenly to all the candidates. Any candidate caught accepting more than they're allowed is automatically disqualified from the election and prosecuted for campaign fraud (even if they're an incumbent). Sure as shit that will take most of the money out of politics, while not (heavily) restricting free speech.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 01:45 PM
 
I keep on reading NN is the NN, as in "the NN forums".
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 01:58 PM
 
I've paused a few times because of it too.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2015, 02:37 PM
 
And the problem is when someone says something like "the critics of NN have a point".

Well, they do.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2015, 02:22 PM
 
Having to do this kind of information gathering is why I don't post often.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Because I think the democrat's support of net neutrality is absolutely emergent of their newfound congressional disadvantage. I will praise them when this stands up to scrutiny in the courts and Democrats can support the issue for longer than a few months (after near a decade of neglect).
Net neutrality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 – Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 is a bill in the United States House of Representatives. It is one of several bills on the topic of network neutrality proposed as part of a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act is sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), and Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN).
Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill of 2006 – Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas and Chairman of the House Commerce Committee)
Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Bill of 2006 – Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, Series of Tubes) & Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Network Neutrality Act of 2006 – Representative Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts)
Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 – Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) & John Conyers (D-Michigan)
Internet Freedom Preservation Act (2007) – Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) & Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota), Co-Sponsors: Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Hillary Clinton (D-New York), John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and other Senators
Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 and 2009 – Representatives Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) & Charles Pickering (R-Mississippi, 2008 only)
Data Cap Integrity Act of 2012 – Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

---

The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006 was a bill in the US House of Representatives.[1] It was part of a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 being considered by the US Congress. The Act was sponsored by Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Rep. Charles Pickering (R-Miss.) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.).

[b]An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) would have supplemented these with a prohibition against service tiering[b], which would have prevented Internet service providers charging consumers more money in exchange for not reducing their Internet speed. The COPE Act was passed by the full House on June 8, 2006; the Markey Amendment failed leaving the final bill without meaningful network neutrality provisions.
U.S. House Record of the Roll Call Vote on the Markey Amendment
Code:
AYES NOES REPUBLICAN 11 211 DEMOCRATIC 140 58 INDEPENDENT 1 TOTALS 152 269
Yup, 'newfound' since 2006. One bill was even co-sponsored by a past Democratic presidential nominee, the current Democratic President, and a possible future Democratic nominee for president. What more would you like.
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; Apr 21, 2015 at 02:35 PM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2015, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Having to do this kind of information gathering is why I don't post often.



Net neutrality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




















---



U.S. House Record of the Roll Call Vote on the Markey Amendment
Code:
AYES NOES REPUBLICAN 11 211 DEMOCRATIC 140 58 INDEPENDENT 1 TOTALS 152 269
And what do we have to show for it?
Yup, 'newfound' since 2006. One bill was even co-sponsored by a past Democratic presidential nominee, the current Democratic President, and a possible future Democratic nominee for president. What more would you like.
Progress.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2015, 12:27 PM
 
So, let's get this straight. First, you say both parties are the same. I illustrate differently. What do you do? Move the goal posts.

Next, you said Democrats would work against NN if given the chance. I show otherwise. Your response? Move the goal posts.

After that, you say the Democrats are opportunists, the Democrats NN support is only recent. I take 15 minutes to compile a list of legislation that refutes that. Reply? A nice hand wave that say not good enough.

Now the complaint is that the Democrats haven't accomplished anything. I suppose that might be true if you discount the FCC's recent reclassification action. Let me guess – since Tom Wheeler isn't explicitly a Democrat it doesn't count, right?



What I see here is a usually rational person doing everything he can to deny reality on just this issue. How can I take you seriously when you've reframed the conversation three times and I've met your revised requirements three times and you still won't give credit where it's due?

Take off those partisan blinders you detest so much and admit it, on this single issue, the Democrats have done the right thing. That doesn't mean they've won anything, that doesn't mean they're the better party overall, that doesn't mean they are saints. It just means that if you care about net neutrality, you should support and praise Democrats. That if you care about net neutrality, Republicans are not the party acting in your interest.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2015, 01:03 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2015, 09:17 AM
 
AT&T CEO confident Title II will be overturned by courts or Congress | Ars Technica
"Keep in mind, Title II was put in place with a 3-2 vote of this commission. Title II could be changed by a 3-2 vote from another commission," Stephenson said. "There's just a lot of moving parts here. We think it's unlikely the rules will stay in place like they are in the long term."
Well, there's a reason not to vote for a presidential candidate against Title II.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2015, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
AT&T CEO confident Title II will be overturned by courts or Congress | Ars Technica

Well, there's a reason not to vote for a presidential candidate against Title II.
IMO, the AT&T guy is trying to assure all the people in bed with him that he's on the ball. I think Title II stands, or even better - it gets overturned and the public outrage forces Congress (maybe not this particular congress) to write a better NN law. That will be it's own challenge, however.


We can't stop at Title II - we have to push harder. The longer this issue stays in the mainstream headlines the better.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2015, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
post
lol – so now you're pretending there's no posts above that.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2015, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, let's get this straight. First, you say both parties are the same. I illustrate differently. What do you do? Move the goal posts.
I never said both parties are the same. I said both parties are still trying to screw us. This does not imply that their means are the same.

Next, you said Democrats would work against NN if given the chance. I show otherwise. Your response? Move the goal posts.
No, my response is that your metric means jack shit. I am interested in bottom line progress, with which I maintain the democrats have failed in an epic way over the last decade. If you want to cherry pick who voted for what be my guest - it doesn't change jack diddly squat for the fight we have in front of us.
After that, you say the Democrats are opportunists, the Democrats NN support is only recent. I take 15 minutes to compile a list of legislation that refutes that. Reply? A nice hand wave that say not good enough.
What did that proposed legislation accomplished during democrat controlled presidency and congresses? Again, and I'll bold it for you this time. Jack Shit.


Now the complaint is that the Democrats haven't accomplished anything. I suppose that might be true if you discount the FCC's recent reclassification action. Let me guess – since Tom Wheeler isn't explicitly a Democrat it doesn't count, right?
Do you honestly believe one of the industry's top lobbyists just woke up one day and changed his position so radically as to completely flip to the other side? I name you naive. Also, Wheeler's body of work is far closer to being friendly to the right than to the left. You can call him whatever you want to make you feel better about NN, but we as the people have not won jack shit, even with the regulations. That is, always has been, and always will be the only metric I give a hoot about.


What I see here is a usually rational person doing everything he can to deny reality on just this issue. How can I take you seriously when you've reframed the conversation three times and I've met your revised requirements three times and you still won't give credit where it's due?
What I see here is a mostly rational person who's fundamental stance on this issue is the same as mine who's rabidly defending an administration and Congress who've been cozy and cushy with the ISP's for a long, long time. An administration and congress who's failed year after year to address the issue. An administration and Congress who've put a bandaid on the issue while opening the door for future abuses without changing any of the fundamental factors that result in the problems we're seeing today. A small step, yes. One that will be meaningless in the long run if we do not demand and receive fundamental reform.

Take off those partisan blinders you detest so much and admit it, on this single issue, the Democrats have done the right thing.
How can you in the top half of your post (erroneously) lambast me for saying "both parties are the same" then accuse me of having partisan blinders? Which is it? I'm advocating to you and the forums at large that we continue this fight while we still have some momentum. I envision you on an aircraft carrier with a massive banner behind you that reads "Mission Accomplished!". Not even close.

That doesn't mean they've won anything, that doesn't mean they're the better party overall, that doesn't mean they are saints. It just means that if you care about net neutrality, you should support and praise Democrats. That if you care about net neutrality, Republicans are not the party acting in your interest.
I maintain that until I see some veritable progress in the problems with the industry, up to and including legislation to replace the telecommunications act altogether, I'm not praising anyone. Nor should you. Just because a man holds the door for you as you pass by does not wipe away the looting, robbing, and stealing he did while no one was paying attention.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2015, 10:22 AM
 
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2015, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
lol – so now you're pretending there's no posts above that.
Goes both ways, brother.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 03:42 PM
 
I'm guessing I'm not getting a response, dakar? Like the rest of the country you've been placated by some minor feel good legislation/regulation that hasn't actually addressed any of the root problems of today's NN fight, and now seem to have lost interest in the fight.

Don't worry, I will continue to advocate for you and all of our brethren for a free and open internet unhindered by government backed oligarchy and the remainder of the ruling class. Next time you give your ISP a call and deal with that horse shit, I want you to think of me and your (D) buddies in congress and the FCC and really think about how hard they've fought for you.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2015, 05:00 PM
 
The reclassification only hit three days ago. I for one want to see how it works out, see how many problems are fixed vs how many remain.

So far, interconnection games seem to be fixed. Bandwidth caps, selling customer data, and annual price gouging ... no data yet.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2015, 01:18 PM
 
OK, slate is clear for the day for the first time in months. Time to hit this heavy hitter.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I never said both parties are the same. I said both parties are still trying to screw us. This does not imply that their means are the same.
Semantics. I'm still demonstrating one party not screwing us on this topic.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No, my response is that your metric means jack shit. I am interested in bottom line progress, with which I maintain the democrats have failed in an epic way over the last decade.
You may not appreciate the metric, but that does not mean it is worthless. Further, if the metric means jack shit, then you shouldn't throw it into the discussion and post incorrect facts on it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If you want to cherry pick who voted for what be my guest - it doesn't change jack diddly squat for the fight we have in front of us.
Cherry pick implies that I've misrepresented the facts. If that's true, please, illuminate me. I'm only as good as my sources.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What did that proposed legislation accomplished during democrat controlled presidency and congresses? Again, and I'll bold it for you this time. Jack Shit.
So if a politician advocates and pursues a policy and fails, his work is of the same value as another politician who does the opposite? This is some kind of "second place is the first loser" level type thinking.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do you honestly believe one of the industry's top lobbyists just woke up one day and changed his position so radically as to completely flip to the other side? I name you naive. Also, Wheeler's body of work is far closer to being friendly to the right than to the left.
I still can't figure out why Wheeler did what he did, and I agree about his body of work. But unless you can give me a credible theory its irrelevant to what has actually happened.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What I see here is a mostly rational person who's fundamental stance on this issue is the same as mine who's rabidly defending an administration and Congress who've been cozy and cushy with the ISP's for a long, long time. An administration and congress who's failed year after year to address the issue. An administration and Congress who've put a bandaid on the issue while opening the door for future abuses without changing any of the fundamental factors that result in the problems we're seeing today. A small step, yes. One that will be meaningless in the long run if we do not demand and receive fundamental reform.
Ah. Well let me clear this up because I see what the fault is. First, I have not defended the administration – so you're wrong there. Go back and reread, I did the opposite.

Second, I'm not defending congress as a body. What I am doing is taking exception to you painting the whole of it as worthless when there are elements within it that have given a damn and have done something on the topic.

We can all be reductionist on various subjects, but on this one you've struck a nerve because your well-placed cynicism for the system conflicted with the actual facts.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How can you in the top half of your post (erroneously) lambast me for saying "both parties are the same" then accuse me of having partisan blinders? Which is it?
I'm accusing you of disregarding the good one party has done so as to equate the two. Perhaps partisan blinders was the incorrect term.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I envision you on an aircraft carrier with a massive banner behind you that reads "Mission Accomplished!". Not even close.
I don't think my tone in this thread implies that at all. Perhaps you'd like to back that up with a quote from me?


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I maintain that until I see some veritable progress in the problems with the industry, up to and including legislation to replace the telecommunications act altogether, I'm not praising anyone. Nor should you. Just because a man holds the door for you as you pass by does not wipe away the looting, robbing, and stealing he did while no one was paying attention.
Title II isn't holding the door. That severely downplays it, IMO.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2015, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Most of what I saw was "regulatory uncertainty." I have no idea what that stands for; Not understanding what Title II does (which we've see in action on phone companies for decades) or not knowing if Title II will survive (in which case its the industries' own creation)?

I'd also like to see what % of fees T II represents compared to other things like permits and actual construction costs.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Most of what I saw was "regulatory uncertainty." I have no idea what that stands for; Not understanding what Title II does (which we've see in action on phone companies for decades) or not knowing if Title II will survive (in which case its the industries' own creation)?
It's a basic principle of business - do not invest in something if there looms a chance that your business model (i.e. ROI, forecasted net income, etc) will be change (at least without knowing what change will be to a high degree of certainty). Regulatory compliance has a real cost attached to it, and the businesses are basically saying "we're not sure if our business model will still work without knowing the near, short, and long term costs of regulatory compliance".

I'd also like to see what % of fees T II represents compared to other things like permits and actual construction costs.
I'd like to see those numbers too, let me know if you find em anywhere (and i'll do the same).
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
OK, slate is clear for the day for the first time in months. Time to hit this heavy hitter.

Semantics. I'm still demonstrating one party not screwing us on this topic.
Again, you've only demonstrated isolated unsuccessful attempts by individuals within that party. The bottom line is the Dems were either so incompetent as to not be worthy of support on the issue (by missing several chances with control of the legislatures and executives) or are content with pocketing money and golfing with the ISP lobbies while you and I suffer. The bottom line, by any metric pegged to actual results (and not promises), is that the Dems aren't any better.

You may not appreciate the metric, but that does not mean it is worthless. Further, if the metric means jack shit, then you shouldn't throw it into the discussion and post incorrect facts on it.
Can you explain to me the value of the metrics you supported your arguments with? I'm not immovable on this, but you've got to present me more than "we made a paltry attempt while pocketing millions in contributions from the ISPs and ultimately failing to move the issue forward".

Cherry pick implies that I've misrepresented the facts. If that's true, please, illuminate me. I'm only as good as my sources.
No, cherry picking implies that you're only considering one particular subset of evidence while ignoring others to make your case. Again, I am basing my viewpoint on results, which paints a very different picture then basing it on proposals that never came anywhere near fruition despite democratic majorities. Take a look at Comcast, ATT, and Verizon's respective contributions to (D) and (R) candidates and you'll see why I am dismissing your sources as inconsequential.

So if a politician advocates and pursues a policy and fails, his work is of the same value as another politician who does the opposite? This is some kind of "second place is the first loser" level type thinking.
I fail to see much of a distinction between the two without actual changes being inked. Politicians literally make a living on making promises and more often then not those promises go unfulfilled for a plethora of reasons.

I see four possible reasons for the Dems failure at NN

A) The politician's may so ineffective as to be unworthy of support.
B) The politician's may take a stance or make a promise for political expediency
C) The politician may be fully supportive of the issue but be unable to garner enough support for that support to be worth anything (i.e. ineffective).
D) The political may begin as supportive but end up susceptible to lobbying efforts, party influence, or campaign contributions.

It's almost impossible to tell which of these it is for the vast majority of Dems, but C could not possibly apply to a majority or even plurality of the party vote (else wise we wouldn't be having this discussion).

The same goes for (R) candidates across a spectrum of issues (though they're pretty openly opposed to NN, much to my chargrin).

I still can't figure out why Wheeler did what he did, and I agree about his body of work. But unless you can give me a credible theory its irrelevant to what has actually happened.
The dems gave him a better offer. What exactly that offer is/was is unknowable, but they were able to attract his support and utility somehow.

Ah. Well let me clear this up because I see what the fault is. First, I have not defended the administration – so you're wrong there. Go back and reread, I did the opposite.
My apologies if I misinterpreted your meanings. I will reread.

Second, I'm not defending congress as a body. What I am doing is taking exception to you painting the whole of it as worthless when there are elements within it that have given a damn and have done something on the topic.
I would like to see what that something is. I am extremely disappointed with the lack of public interest in the issue post-T2, though I may have to be a bit more patient for industry wide reform.

We can all be reductionist on various subjects, but on this one you've struck a nerve because your well-placed cynicism for the system conflicted with the actual facts.
I think you're being extremely optimistic for the amount of support congressional democrats have placed into NN. Too little, too late and if you follow the money a lot of it is coming from the industry and going to the dems.

I'm accusing you of disregarding the good one party has done so as to equate the two. Perhaps partisan blinders was the incorrect term.
This is where you lose me. Again, the analogy of the man who robbed you blind then held the door for you as you passed. The dems are gonna have to do a hell of a lot more good more them to garner my support. Right now we've got two kinds of bad on the issue.

I don't think my tone in this thread implies that at all. Perhaps you'd like to back that up with a quote from me?
I just think we can and should demand quite a bit more "good" than we're getting, especially with democratic "support" on the issue.

Title II isn't holding the door. That severely downplays it, IMO.
I think this remains to be seen. Getting T2 is one thing, how they implement it is another. Again, a tool may be in place but I am still skeptical that it will be used effectively, by design or otherwise. Even if the tool is used to its fullest extent, we still need fundamental reform to properly remedy and mitigate the myriad issues NN faces today.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2016, 02:52 PM
 
FCC just voted to unlock cable boxes. The vote (of course) ran along party lines.

I officially have no understanding of Tom Wheeler. From industry shill to consumer advocate in a few years.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2016, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
FCC just voted to unlock cable boxes. The vote (of course) ran along party lines.

I officially have no understanding of Tom Wheeler. From industry shill to consumer advocate in a few years.
I am equally as dumbfounded as you are in terms of Wheeler, and (i assume) equally as delighted with the result. The republicans continue to dissappoint me here - they're doing the exact opposite of what republican values should dictate. I maintain my skepticism of the dems being any better, but they're definitely on the right track and have my support for their efforts so far. This should have happened years ago, but better late than never!
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2016, 06:51 PM
 
Agreed. Wheeler quite unexpectedly has been on the right side of the issues more often than not. That being said, I'm not particularly excited about this development. Because it sounds like the cable companies retain control over how the content is packaged and displayed. So IMO if I'm still relegated to a cable style program guide and can only watch shows when they are broadcast and not on demand then doing that on my Apple TV is just the same old sh*t in a different package. Just saying ...

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2016, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The republicans continue to dissappoint me here - they're doing the exact opposite of what republican values should dictate. I maintain my skepticism of the dems being any better, but they're definitely on the right track and have my support for their efforts so far. This should have happened years ago, but better late than never!
One party is seen as pro business, the other likes to tax and regulate more. The very notion of regulation implies a desire to curb rampant, unchecked capitalism along lines of public or environmental interest and general fairness. As a businessman with a unfair plan and who cares only about profit, who do you throw your bribes at?

This is why I see the Democrats as being marginally more trustworthy. Because at least some of the time they do things that nobody would have bribed them to do.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2016, 06:31 PM
 
Netflix should be investigated for throttling itself, FCC Republican says | Ars Technica
The FCC, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress should all investigate, FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said in a speech today in front of the American Action Forum, a policy research institute. O'Rielly is not impressed by Netflix's argument that it only reduces video quality to help its customers stay under mobile data caps.

"Netflix has attempted to paint a picture of altruism whereby it virtuously sought to save these consumers from bumping up against or exceeding their data caps," O'Rielly said. "There is no way to sugarcoat it: the news is deeply disturbing and justly generates calls for government—and maybe even Congressional—investigation."

O'Rielly went on to say that "the Federal Trade Commission may have grounds to scrutinize Netflix’s video throttling." O'Rielly—who voted against the FCC's net neutrality order in a 3-2 party-line vote—conceded that Netflix did not violate the net neutrality rule against throttling. That's because the rules only apply to Internet service providers and mobile carriers.
So, a guy who voted against FCC's Net Neutrality and has continued to vote against it's use in taking action against ISPs want a non-ISP entity investigated for throttling users, even though it doesn't fall under the purview of the law he's consistently been against. As far as anyone can tell, Netflix's real violation has been depriving phone companies of overage fee revenue.

What a ****ing scumbag.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2016, 08:50 PM
 
What Netflix is doing is not even throttling: Netflix can decide which data to send whereas ISPs just provide the piping. So if it decides to send a lower-res, more highly compressed version of the video, it's their prerogative (and it's clear that Netflix thinks that this is to their customers' benefit). That's very different from an entity in the middle deciding what content gets sent at what speeds.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2016, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What Netflix is doing is not even throttling: Netflix can decide which data to send whereas ISPs just provide the piping. So if it decides to send a lower-res, more highly compressed version of the video, it's their prerogative (and it's clear that Netflix thinks that this is to their customers' benefit). That's very different from an entity in the middle deciding what content gets sent at what speeds.
From my understanding they discontinued the practice as well, due to HD phone screens.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2016, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
From my understanding they discontinued the practice as well, due to HD phone screens.
I think it'd be reasonable to have that as an option so that customers can choose. But in either case, I am baffled by the moronic claims that this has anything to do with net neutrality.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2016, 02:05 AM
 
Agreed. Net neutrality applies to the carrier(s) in between, not to the source or destination.

I think the ISPs are grasping at straws. Anything to throw back all the criticism they've been getting. Which they can't refute, since their NN violations are real.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2016, 09:31 AM
 
Surely you meant 'this commissioner' is grasping at straws?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2016, 01:30 PM
 
I was commenting on the general situation. The commissioner isn't the only one. The ACA is petitioning the FCC, including fake outrage at Netflix.
The American Cable Association went a step further, issuing a statement calling for an FCC investigation.
However, I'll agree the commissioner was grasping at straws too. A congressional investigation of Netflix, indeed. That bong is working well.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2016, 11:15 PM
 
A website that serves up a smaller/lower-resolution image is improving user experience. Doing the same for video is a similar responsive design solution that improves page loads, streaming, etc. Every good website out there practices responsive design, if they want mobile traffic. Netflix isn't any different.

This guy doesn't understand the internet.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 10:33 AM
 
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2016, 05:31 PM
 
On the surface, that sounds like a good idea. But ... all mentioned sponsors are Republican. No supporters of other affiliations.

Of the three examples given, he's taking potshots at affordable healthcare and LED/CFL regs - eventual phaseout of incandescent bulbs. I'm not sure what "puddles in people’s backyards" refers to, possibly mosquito control to limit disease spread.

So yes, it does look like a backdoor attack on the FCC reigning in our uncompetitive and out-of-control ISPs. Or perhaps CO2 emissions regulations on power plants, or emissions controls on cars. He should give a lot more examples so we could actually tell.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 11:24 AM
 
The FCC lost in court over preempting state laws that block municipal broadband
     
abbaZaba
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The FCC lost in court over preempting state laws that block municipal broadband
My brief take on this from an ArsTechnica article is that the FCC took a bit of a legal gamble with this and got shut down.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 12:56 PM
 
The sad thing is, I think the judges were right. To have a federal department overrule state laws is undemocratic, and should require a high bar for specific authority.

Perhaps instead, the DOJ should investigate state lawmakers for corruption in ~20 states. Oh right, it's only the FCC that is trying to help us. The DOJ (via the FBI) spends all their time trying to ban encryption so we can all be less secure.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 01:10 PM
 
Right. If they superseded the states rights it likely would have relied on the commerce clause which has been abused to death. It'll take an act of congress and even if we had a dem majority I doubt it'd even make a list of priorities.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2016, 11:45 PM
 
I had to post this:

AT&T refuses to offer low-income discounts for sub-3Mbps Internet | Ars Technica

So the TL;DR is that as part of the merger conditions for AT&T and DirecTV, the new merged company has to offer discounted Internet service to poor families. AT&T is now getting around this requirement by simply making itself technically unable to comply with the minimum speed in the agreement (3Mbps), so they can sell an even lower speed (e.g. 1.5Mbps) at a higher price than specified by the agreement.

I don't even.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 12:53 AM
 
AT&T is the internet's equivalent to satan. The worst of the worst, even counting Comcast.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,