FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #309

algorias wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they rely on other people's wires, namely the ones rented (i.e. paid for) by the consumers of their products. How do you justify double dipping in this case?

Apple charges me for my iPhone, then takes 30% when someone sells me an app for it. Sony charges me for a PS3, then charges publishers a fee for every copy of every game they release. When your property facilitates a transaction between two parties, it's not "double dipping" to charge a fee to both.

Post by baddox » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #142

CzechsMix wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a little Ad hom for my taste. If he's making bad points, attack and refute those. Not him.

As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are. If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especiall…

Post by oceanstone » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:47 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #103

chetanahuja wrote: post #76

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…

> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification. The EFF o…

Post by smutticus » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:49 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #314

r00fus wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As soon as it was deregulated, Verizon and AT&T began upgrades. But before then, they weren't going to build upgrades to networks that any competitor could borrow at wholesale value. Given the great intentions that such bastions of corporate ethics like AT&T and Verizon have, is it possible that they simple held out until the got what they wanted?

What exactly is "unethical" about not investing tons of money in something that isn't going to yield the kind of profit your investors want? People act like Verizon and AT&T have a moral obligation to spend money on telecom infrastructure as a public good at minimal price above cost.

Post by artemisu » Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 9:49 PM UTC

spiralpolitik wrote: post #266

Spooky23 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark Cuban's position isn't technically savvy, it's an opportunity for him to make more money. He says flat out that the Internet model that has worked for decades is broken now, because Netflix. Oh, and QVC should have a right to pay for preferred treatment and lower latency. The reality is that building core network capacity to handle the likes of Netflix and 8k television is possible and gets cheaper as time goes…

Isn't this what it boils down to for the opponents of Net Neutrality ? Either they can't make as much money or they can't buy themselves advantage. Also expect to see someone like Cuban challenge this on 1st amendment grounds. Given that for the 1% mindset spending money equals speech, the government stopping them spending money to again an advantage is in their mind a restriction on speech. Sad but true.