641–650 of 745 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide a link to the 700 regulations? Can't find one anywhere else.
Holy hell - why the down votes? "Everything is public" made it sound like the regulations had been published. I just wanted to know where. What's wrong with asking for a citation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested? By little fanfare I mean the fact that everyone read his editorial, and cheered and let it be. Again, I think most people agree this is the right move, but we talk about how it's important for the internet to be open and neutral but I didn't hear much screaming and yelling to see…
> Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested? Sure, I'm interested; I'm also aware enough of the regulatory process to not expect to see anything published between a NPRM and the next official regulatory action, even though that next action is likely to be a final rule/order and even though there are likely to be interestin…
I get treated like a bad person, and questioned, because all I want is to be able to read a regulation. I didn't even say I was against it.
Even if you look at past comments, all I wanted was clarity, not editorials and speeches, the damn text.
Good lord.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radio waves are different than wireline Internet. The FCC regulates radio because there is a limited amount of usable frequencies, and these are supposed to belong to the people, so they need to be distributed and managed by a central organization. Any since the Supreme Court has ruled that the FCC has the legal authority to enforce censorship, we're stuck with it. Radio is also different because it is a broadcast me…
"Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV." It's not though. A phone conversation is only one person (or less than 10) at a time. You can broadcast a message on the Internet that can reach millions of people. Twitter, Facebook, and even…
edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet?
Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments.
Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldil…
There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly. Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets. Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it should be mandated that competition is much easier. Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1? Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And other people will never have fiber Internet, lower prices and higher bandwidth because current monopolist in their area doesn't care to do any of the above. So how do you propose to fix that? Unbundling is the only way. Not sure about Kitsap, but unbundling worked well in Europe. How weren't they scared there of the same thing?
A lot of the difference in economics between Europe and rural Washington state has to do with the extremely high fixed cost of "last mile" internet connection in rural areas, which are, for a number of reasons, substantially more prohibitive in America. Trying to pay off $9000 in fixed costs with $30/mo internet simply isn't going to happen if a competitor can swoop in and offer the same service for $20/mo with no in…
For places with no last mile infrastructure yet, one way to handle it that's been done is that the public builds it (i.e., it's owned by the municipal government) and leases its use also at a reasonable rate.
An example in a different industry is electricity. I'm in Canada and in my province we pay to a local company, but a separate company owns the overall grid. There's a charge for distribution that appears on everyone's bill to pay for the infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two decades is a long time to set up a market, to be honest. And in that time, there have been fewer choices in the market, with smaller companies being regularly gobbled up into large conglomerates with astoundingly bad customer satisfaction the result. or is, due to a long history of regulation and government involvement, inhibited And this is really begging the question, in the fallacious sense. Where does this "b…
Stefan Molyneux came out with a one hour long video today - very detailed historic overview and discussion - of the government involvement that led to the current state of affairs (which beg for more government involvement, etc). Its worth watching it in its entirety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4 Personally, I can't stand Comcast/Verizon/AT&T either, but I was born in Stasi East Germany. To me, the ide…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Were you able to read the regulation before it was passed? Not that we could change anything, but weren't you in the least bit interested? Sure, I'm interested; I'm also aware enough of the regulatory process to not expect to see anything published between a NPRM and the next official regulatory action, even though that next action is likely to be a final rule/order and even though there are likely to be interestin…
Again, I never said I was against it, all I want to to is to be able to read and question the damn thing. Why are you and others acting like that's a crime? I get treated like a bad person, and questioned, because all I want is to be able to read a regulation. I didn't even say I was against it. Even if you look at past comments, all I wanted was clarity, not editorials and speeches, the damn text. Good lord.
This is in fact how things work. If you follow government regulations closely in any sphere, then you pay attention to the contents of the Federal Register because it is, quite literally, the government's To-Do list. Most countries operate this way, publishing some sort of national gazette or official newspaper that detailsadministrative matters, solicits bids for public works contracts, announces the formation or dissolution of official agencies, etc. etc. etc.
Check it out, it's quite user-friendly and you can literally see how your tax dollars get spent: https://www.federalregister.gov/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Radio is also different because it is a broadcast medium. Any person who turns on their radio will hear what is being broadcast. Internet communication is much more analogous to a phone or mail conversation than radio or TV." It's not though. A phone conversation is only one person (or less than 10) at a time. You can broadcast a message on the Internet that can reach millions of people. Twitter, Facebook, and even…
Most of us find significant qualitative differences between using a radio and a web browser or even an app. edit: are astro-turfers out again? I was merely stating my opinion on the topic..and was down voted. Is this an example of an open and free Internet? Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments.
Even from this statement, I can tell you don't know what I am even talking about. Using is much different than broadcasting.
"Yes, it is. People are freely expressing their disagreement with your fallacy-laden arguments."
Down voting is not disagreeing. It's silencing. Disagreeing would be actually having a point and having a civil debate. I see none of that here. Saying it is a "fallacy" doesn't count.
I'm tired of arguing with people that want their rights taken away. When and if it happens, I will have enough money to just buy what I need anyway.
Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldil…
There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly. Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets. Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it should be mandated that competition is much easier. Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1? Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two problems, and the FCC has solved one of them perfectly. Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets. Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it should be mandated that competition is much easier. Would you be happy if they solved problem 2 without solving problem 1? Leave problem 2 for another day, and celebrate that problem 1 has been dealt with.
Personally, I think that solving problem 2 is the most important, and problem 1, if it is truly a problem, could be solved by a competitive free market. If it's truly possible for new competitors to enter the market, then if problem 1 really matters, market forces will handle it.
Market forces didn't handle seat belts, air bags, fuel efficiency, racial discrimination, taxation without representation, etc. We cannot rely on the market to solve all problems.