It really seems a lot like CISPA and the Patriot Act. A popular outcry from the citizens of this country can stop it once, twice, three times, but how long can they hold out? Can we spread outrage about CISPA when its being voted on for the 500th time in lieu of any bill that might actually help this country? The fact that the citizens of this country are constantly having to fight their congressmen to actually do what they desire is the most clear example that our country is completely broken.
We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
201–210 of 275 posts
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do get upset if the commercial say "up to 20 different kind of food, and all-you-can-eat", but during lunch rush it is just a couple of carrots that looks half moldy. One aspect of net neutrality is advertizement laws and clear communication between the commercial entity and the consumer. A restaurant can't just say that "its up to!" and give you a carrot when you paid $50 for a buffet, complaining that their capac…
I thought the wording of the contract had already changed to be specific to commercial activity, at least in KC. Am I remembering things incorrectly?
Its not enough that you change the fine print in a 20 page long legal contract. A restaurant could easy require you to agree to an customer agreement on the point of booking a table. It would still not allow them to book 50 people and make food for 10, arguing that their capacity to make food is full. Even if the customer agreement said that the restaurant is only responsible to supply food "up to" all-you-can-eat. The police would classify such scheme as a scam.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
The utility market moved towards a regulated model in the very early days of electric and gas transmission. There were lots of really good reasons for this around safety, universal service and public good. Most states today have a model where delivery is tightly regulated, but electricity generation is a competitive marketplace. At the end of the day the government exists to serve the public interest.
Government exists to organize society. Feudalism served its lords, monarchy served its kings and nobles, empire its emperors, and democracy, occasionally, its people. Government has served a variety of masters in the past - but rarely purely the public interest.
It should serve the public interest, which is good enough for policy debates.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
The utility market used to be competitive, then municipalities began "licensing" them, which eventually led to the current state of affairs.[1] Even lighthouses, which have large externalities, can be built and operated without government intervention, as they did for a very long time.[2] [1] http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ElectricityandItsRegulati... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lighthouse_in_Economics
The utility market moved towards a regulated model in the very early days of electric and gas transmission. There were lots of really good reasons for this around safety, universal service and public good. Most states today have a model where delivery is tightly regulated, but electricity generation is a competitive marketplace. At the end of the day the government exists to serve the public interest.
Correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm not very familiar with this issue), but I gather that the tightly regulated part - power transmission and distribution - suffers greatly from decaying infrastructures due to lack of investment and maintainance. It seems to be at the brink of collapse in some places.
I'm not against government regulation of essential infrastructures, but we should be aware of the fact that it's very difficult to get right, particularly (but not only) in a political climate where government spending is such a divisive issue.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#205How is this different from Google charging bit guys for blackhat SEO, while those who don't pay - are penalised?
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#206IMHO, this isn't about Netflix, YouTube, or even Amazon having to pay for higher tiered access to customers. They have the deep pockets and smart lawyers to construct contracts that work out for them in the end. So I see that as the same grumpy story as California and New York forcing Amazon to collect sales tax. BUT, because this does force deals to be crafted behind closed doors, they will turn out looking a lot li…
Is that necessarily a bad thing in all cases? I think it would be great if a company offered, say, really cheap or free access to wikipedia and other basic websites, but charged for actual service. Letting poor people access it or making it available to host cheaper free wifi. I think what people are afraid of is them throttling competitors, or charging more for normal service, but it doesn't have to be that way.
why do that instead of just making it so that really poor people got internet access, and then allowing them to decide how they use it?
as much as possible, we should avoid making decisions people can make for themselves.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#207Some countries, like Japan, have addressed this issue by separating infrastructure from service. One company owns the network, several other companies provided the internet access.
This creates a competitive market between service provides (competing on price, service quality, and customer service) while removing the high costs to enter that market.
Infrastructure, as opposed to service, becomes the regulated market.
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#208Marvin, the author of the Wired.com opinion piece, is a smart fellow. But what he ignores is that Congress never handed the FCC the authority to impose Net neutrality regulations on the Internet. Such legislation actually came up for a vote in Congress, and it came close to passage: it was reported favorably out of a Senate committee but was defeated in a House floor vote in 2006: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-608…
When ATT and Verizon are allowed to set up their toll booths all over the internet, it's not really the internet any more.
"That'll be $60 for the gas. Oh wait -- where are you going with that gas? Boston? No problem. That's $40 extra if you want to go more than 25 miles an hour."
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#209We are doing a net neutrality IndieGogo campaign http://uplink.aero/project.html http://igg.me/at/aero
But based on our conversion rate, I don't think there is a market for it. Feel free to email us if you have any constructive criticism. contact@uplink.aero
Re: We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Liberalists seem to believe that free-marketism is a self-[optimizing] algorithm. It's worth noting that in the US, the term "liberal" is often used in association with those who are skeptical of the free market (moreso than their political opponents, anyway). Classical liberalism does promote laissez-faire economic policy, so you aren't incorrect, but the term is a bit ambiguous in context (see the 2nd paragraph i…
> I believe that governments ought to put consumer interests first, even though presently they have a track record of doing the exact opposite. For me, this is the part I'd emphasize, and probably where we could create a great deal of consensus. Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big…
> Whether or not we agree that the government should be interfering for the benefit of the consumer, we definitely agree that it shouldn't be interfering for the benefit of big business.
But government is largely bought and paid for by special interests. Given that, it seems there's very little point in asking what the gov't should do.
What it will do, is quite obvious: it will serve the interests of the highest bidder.