So ISPs get freedom and the users get screwed? The "Net Neutrality is like a Obamacare for the internet" is one of the most disingenuous claims I've heard from Cruz in awhile, Trump was right with his "lyin Ted Cruz" line.
Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
41–50 of 155 posts
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#42Why aren't google, facebook, amazon and apple fighting against this? They are some of the biggest companies in the world and they just seem to be rolling over at this. What gives?
While the existence of net neutrality-breaking ISPs could have caused any of these companies to fail in their infancy, their current position in the market allows them to largely benefit from this environment.
They may have added costs, but to them, that may be worth it if it artificially filters out possible future competition.
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#43Then don't do business with terrible companies that invade your privacy.
Enough with this crap, many places have one provider to choose from. This is especially true in cities where many live in apartments or condos, and also in rural areas where the cost of build-out is very high.
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#44Current headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority" More accurate headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” preserves 2015-era FCC Internet regulation status quo" Another headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” temporarily prevents FCC from enacting 3-2 partisan Internet regulations, unless a future Congress changes things" Yet another headline: "GOP’s “Internet Freedom Act” shift…
From your post:
It makes more sense for Congress to come up with a lasting solution that isn't subject to regulatory bounce-back, and this is what the bill being described in the article seems to do.
From the article:
But from what we know about Lee's bill so far, it appears the proposal wouldn't impose any type of net neutrality rules to replace the current ones.
Wherein lies the so-called "lasting solution"?
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if he's just misinformed or if he's being intentionally deceptive. He talks about the "light touch" framework of the Bill Clinton era, which saw telecos profit immensely and never feed any money back into their system. I've know Comcast line who, back in the early 2000s, would tell me they'd take parts to their shop where people would resolder and reconstruct equipment that no one in the world manufactur…
One can never know other people's motivations, but one can certainly guess, and pretty much everyone agrees that Pai is smart enough to know better.
He obviously is intelligent if he has made it this far, but taking everything he says, I can't regard him as more than an idiot.
He says contradictory things. He says he supports an idea but doesn't support the act of enforcing it. His apparent ideology is in direct conflict with his actions. He either fundamentally misunderstands the situation, is majorly corrupt, or is simply malicious (which I doubt).
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is kind of BS. Let's contrast what Pai says: >Net neutrality, if it means a free and open internet, is something that everybody agrees upon, Meanwhile, in the Ars article, we have a sponsoring Senator who hates Obamacare saying: >In the announcement, Cruz repeated his charge that net neutrality is "Obamacare for the Internet." So not sure what you're trying to do other than misinform us.
I'm not sure it's inaccurate to describe Title II regulation as heavy-handed and unnecessary when the most rapid and beneficial growth of the Internet occurred in the 90s when there was little/no regulation.
My puppy grew at a great rate in the first year of her life but her growth has since slowed and now she hardly seems to grow at all. I blame excess regulation!
There were three basic reasons for the super-fast growth of internet in the 90s, which I remember quite well as I was making a good living selling computers and networking services.
1. It got way easier to use. When I first got onto the internet it was (almost) all text-based and unix-like, and conceptually difficult for many people to get to grips with, until someone invented a thing called a 'web browser' that regular people could figure out more easily.
2. No taxes on internet business, which had nothing to do with net neutrality but led to a stampede of people looking to make a quick buck and keep more of it than they would in other lines of business.
3. there was huge market potential because lots of people in developed countries had enough disposable income to own a computer, and modems were relatively affordable. Lots of people were doing peer-to-peer networking or running bulletin boards. If you wanted to start an internet company int eh 1990s all you needed was enough capital to rent a T1 line and a buy a or lease some network switching equipment (which was also becoming suddenly affordable with the growth of ethernet), and people would use your service because there weren't that many services out there.
I wrote a book for consumers on how to use the exciting new world of the internet back in 1995. Sadly it's long out of print but you can buy my copy for a mere $1000 and educate yourself on what things were actually like >20 years ago instead of your ideological imaginings.
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
What lots of people don't know is many ISPs across the country took that money and shoved it in exec pockets and then raised rates and never invested in infrastructure. An exec of one in my area for example was caught embezzling millions of that grant money.
Do you have a source that shows their misuse of funds? I don't believe it to be wrong, I have parroted this fact many times myself. But I just realised that I don't have any evidence of it either.
Different topic, but on the legal side of the law you'll find that most exclusive franchise agreements by an ISP contain something to the effect of "we will pay the city/county $A, give them an ongoing amount of $B/yr (and are not allowed to break that out as a line item), and perform C, D, and E at no cost."
All these agreements are public. Go down to your local city hall or courthouse and ask for a copy of the franchise agreement.
Point being, part of the evil is Comcast. The other part is your elected local politicians...
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#48This is why politics is important, even in tech. We need some grownups to represent us. If you spend ~$50/month on home internet access, and $50/month on cell phone access, that's $1200/year for internet connectivity. How much do you spend on hardware per year? Do you buy a >$1200 laptop per year? How much money does Google make off of your info? The ISPs are rolling in cash. They have terrible customer service. They…
> How much money does Google make off of your info?
Alphabet's net income in 2016 was $19.5 billion, as much as Comcast and Verizon put together. Alphabet's return on invested capital and operating margins were significantly higher than either. There are various reasons to regulate ISPs, but "they make too much money" isn't a particularly good one: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corp... (telecom ROIC is among the lowest of any industry).
> If there was proper competition, would we be spending such ridiculously high fees on the internet access we get?
Is Google in a market with "proper competition?"
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can never know other people's motivations, but one can certainly guess, and pretty much everyone agrees that Pai is smart enough to know better.
He obviously is intelligent if he has made it this far, but taking everything he says, I can't regard him as more than an idiot. He says contradictory things. He says he supports an idea but doesn't support the act of enforcing it. His apparent ideology is in direct conflict with his actions. He either fundamentally misunderstands the situation, is majorly corrupt, or is simply malicious (which I doubt).
> He says he supports an idea but doesn't support the act of enforcing it.
I support the idea of being faithful in your marriage, but I'm 100% opposed to the federal government enforcing this. How is that contradictory?
Re: Proposed “Internet Freedom Act” permanently guts net neutrality authority
#50Then don't do business with terrible companies that invade your privacy.
Enough with this crap, many places have one provider to choose from. This is especially true in cities where many live in apartments or condos, and also in rural areas where the cost of build-out is very high.
That's because government regulations create artificial entry barriers that preclude a free and open market. It's foolhardy to believe that adding more regulations will solve anything.