Net Nuetrality... - Page 2

I can't recall anything that has improved once the government got involved.

The Internet isn't broken. It doesn't need to be "fixed."

Not counting satellite providers, at work we have three choices. Prices are great, and there are different packages. I went for the basic 20MB downloading package, but there are tons of options.

The problem with government is that people, by nature, become corrupted by power. The EPA was a "good idea" in Nixon's time. Look what's happened.

The ICC and DOT regulations were a good idea at the time. We went from the Smokey and the Bandit extreme to today's mess of rules. Look what's happened.

Once government gets into something, they expand their power as much as possible. That's what concerns me the most.

Opinion was not offered until I did more research. Cannot understand why details of this plan were not made public, why a limited government agency is able to bypass congress, why the head of the FCC would not answer questions from congress, and why this feels so much like Obama Care. It seems like this is similar to statements about Americans are not smart enough to understand. These are not opinions, just fact therefore are not political in nature. I would just prefer congress or the judicial branch were involved in the decision. And yes, access to the internet is an asset to scrapping. If this is a political post I apologize, but to this observer it could alter my business and life as I know it.

The argument as I understand it is that some people are treated differently because of the amount of business they solicit. I know I get better prices at the scrap yard than the average person because I provide more business and my loads are clean. It is called free enterprise and capitalism. Any body else out there get better prices because they work harder, smarter, and know their business? Under net neutrality, scrappers should be paid the same as any one else off the street regardless of the services we offer.

I trust the free market more than the government to police our business practices. Case closed:

Originally Posted by thebugguy

Second, I think t00nces2 comment regarding Ferraris provides a good, a-political window into one of the misunderstandings surrounding this issue:

Would your car company charge you more for a Ferrari than they would for a Chevy Spark?

Yes, I would expect to pay more for a Ferrari. The difference here, though, is that there are dozens of car companies producing hundreds of models sold by thousands of dealers with hundreds of thousands of individual cars for sale. If I can afford to buy a Ferrari, I can buy a Ferrari. If I can't, well, there's always the Fiesta.

BUT, the internet is not a product like a car, it's like a utility. How many different companies can you choose from to deliver electricity to your house? Probably one. How many companies can you choose from to deliver natural gas? Probably one. If you use propane you can probably choose among a couple local suppliers who all get their gas from the same place. How many companies can you choose from to deliver your water? Probably none- you buy it from a local government. How many companies can you choose from to deliver internet service? In many places the answer is one, maybe two. If you live in a well-connected metropolitan area (or are satisfied using satellite or dial-up), you might have a couple more options.

And that's the crux of the matter. Utilities are regulated to prevent price gouging and discriminatory pricing because people *need* them. Frankly, I'm glad there isn't a CEO somewhere making money every time I wash my dishes. And, trust me, those utility companies are making plenty of money delivering natural gas and electricity under these regulations- if they weren't, they wouldn't exist. Internet service providers are in the same boat. Given recent consolidations, they are now in a position to begin dictating prices and content availability to customers, and the Net Neutrality regulations are designed to protect consumers from discriminatory pricing for something (access to the internet) that almost everyone needs and uses on a daily basis in order to make a living.

As far as I can tell, the government isn't charging anyone anything, they aren't making decisions on what you can and can't see on the internet, the point is merely to prevent the giant internet service providers from screwing their customers simply because they can (you don't like *my* internet service? Fine, go buy your own fiber optic cable!).

Again, relevant, courteous, fact-based communication. America needs more of this, not less, IMHO.

Cheers,
tbg

You are right. The internet service has been limited by regulation thus far because no one is allowed to offer new cable lines or phone lines or fiber optic lines. Perhaps a bit of unregulated competition would help all of us have access to better delivery systems instead of allowing the big three to have monopoly control of the means of distribution. Any wonder they are the ones most in favor of the government crackdown on internet freedom?

allow companies to charge for more speed. If the governement mandates a minimum Internet speed, every company will raise their prices to the level of the highest plan (If not higher).

At home, our Internet is about 4 Mbps download. That's enough for us. The Internet is not a utility like water or electricity. I can't purchase faster electricity, nor can I get slower water. The current system works great- when I had Internet installed in my office, I had my choice of three vendors (Not counting satellite services). I chose one. That particular vendor had three plan options- ranging from 20Mbps down to 50Mbps down. I chose the 20, because it was all that I needed. 20 is more than enough. If a 10Mbps plan was offered, I would have chosen it.

I fail to see why minimum thresholds need to be set. Need more than 20Mbps download speed? Purchase the 50Mbps plan. Simple.

We were able to do just fine without the Internet for centuries. I think it being out for a few hours won't kill anyone.

That said, the best solution is to let the free market work. If there is only one vendor in your area, and they do a poor job, then someone else will start a competing vendor. The first vendor will either have to improve, or will fail.

I have a customer who wanted to switch Internet (He could only use one vendor for cable-based Internet). He was going to switch to Dish Network's Internet service. But, there was a federal regulation that made it so Dish could not install Internet on his property.

The Federal Government at work!

If there is only one vendor in your area, and they do a poor job, then someone else will start a competing vendor

Full article at Scrap Metal Forum: http://www.scrapmetalforum.com/gener...#ixzz3SvO6ArAn


Actually...This isn't true in all areas. My sandbar is a fine example. You have two choices for internet. Charter, and Centrylink(Aka Embarq before bought). TV you got three..Charter, Directv, or Dish.

Family of mine lives in Va. Their apartment complex has a deal with an ISP an it's the only one you can use. My family who is having to deal with all this is pissed cause it's always going out, or having issues. She can't change tho without moving.

I dislike government involved in a lot of things, but I also dislike being forced to use something i may not want to, which is exactly what would have happened. I like to have choices. I don't think it's cool for a ISP/Cable Company/whatever to be able to throttle back usage. Or determine for me whose site I use or don't.

Regulation isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it needs to be done. Utilities fall in that category for me. Regulation comes about when people get greedy, stupid, or both.

Sirscrapalot - Go to hell for the company, an heaven for climate - Mark Twain

Monopoly's are never good.....remember At&t in the 80's... Nobody was going to compete with them.

What happens when the city you live in decides and choose's to make the entire city a "wired city". With one provider and multiple plans, if you can pay more you get a great package, if you can't afford any of the plans you get what?

Oh, this totally changes my mind. I had no idea net neutrality was about complying with international law. I have always said, "I don't mind if we ignore the United States Constitution, as long as we live up the the human rights standards as enforced by the Iranian government, the free press standards respected by the Cuban government, the governmental ethical compliance of the Russian government and the informational data control orchestration represented by the Chinese government. Whoa, was I ever wrong to question governmental control of our speech and informational distribution technology. I wonder if I can unsign the petition?

In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility

The F.C.C. is taking this big regulatory step by reclassifying high-speed Internet service as a telecommunications service ... under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The Title II classification comes from the phone company era, treating service as a public utility.

United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications

The United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (the "Electronic Communications Convention", or ECC) is a treaty that aims at facilitating the use of electronic communications in international trade. It was prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 23 November 2005.

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

[47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (F.C.C.).

SEC. 303. [47 U.S.C. 303] GENERAL POWERS OF COMMISSION.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Commission from time to
time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires shall--

(r) Make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and
conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act, or any international radio or wire communications treaty or
convention, or regulations annexed thereto, including any treaty or convention
insofar as it relates to the use of radio, to which the United States is or may
hereafter become a party.

It is interesting how many of us have opinions and no one has read the scope and sequence of this plan. Without transparency, I do not trust what is being recommended. Waiting for a politician that will advocate for transparency in government. Sorry I need to restate that last comment, waiting for someone to provide transparency in government.

I still do not know if net neutrality is good or bad for our country, but want to question why our system of checks and balances is in jeopardy because of the lack of information provided to the American people. And congress has been forced to vote on laws that they have not even read. It is time to lay the cards on the table and make informative/educational decisions and quit playing blind mans poker.

Originally Posted by Sirscrapalot

If there is only one vendor in your area, and they do a poor job, then someone else will start a competing vendor

Full article at Scrap Metal Forum: http://www.scrapmetalforum.com/gener...#ixzz3SvO6ArAn


Actually...This isn't true in all areas. My sandbar is a fine example. You have two choices for internet. Charter, and Centrylink(Aka Embarq before bought). TV you got three..Charter, Directv, or Dish.

Family of mine lives in Va. Their apartment complex has a deal with an ISP an it's the only one you can use. My family who is having to deal with all this is pissed cause it's always going out, or having issues. She can't change tho without moving.

I dislike government involved in a lot of things, but I also dislike being forced to use something i may not want to, which is exactly what would have happened. I like to have choices. I don't think it's cool for a ISP/Cable Company/whatever to be able to throttle back usage. Or determine for me whose site I use or don't.

Regulation isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it needs to be done. Utilities fall in that category for me. Regulation comes about when people get greedy, stupid, or both.

Sirscrapalot - Go to hell for the company, an heaven for climate - Mark Twain

Sounds to me like the problem is the apartment complex rather than a internet speed or internet company problem. This appears to have an "apartment complex in VA." solution rather than an "everybody in the United States" solution. I, in Sarasota, Florida, should not be forced, at the point of a gun, to abide by a resolution to an apartment complex in VA problem.

The easiest fix would be to move. Next would be to remove the "only one cable company in my apartment complex" knucklehead from "apartment complex in VA" power structure.

Originally Posted by WestCoastProspector

Most of the major American ISPs built their infrastructure using government money and can only stay financially viable due to having locked, long-term (upwards of 30 year) contracts that were built in an era when the internet wasn't understood. Be realistic, if you could change your cable company, wouldn't you? My house was a one-horse town for years in that regard and let me tell you it was absolutely terrible. Service outages all the time, slow load times (far below what was advertised) and no customer service to speak of. Then a new company arrives on the scene and we've been with them ever since, no complaints.

The campaigns pushing against net neutrality are sponsored by the big guys, because they want to be able to put netflix out of business to make people watch their own OnDemand services. Normally, I'd never advocate government intervention in anything, but until these contracts expire or are revoked, and companies like ComCast have to deal with real competition, there's no reason why they shouldn't be regulated the way they are. They really are just state corporations by any other name.

You say you know what is in the bill, but google and comcast and verizon and the biggies wrote the bill. We have no idea what is in the law, we only know it will give the government control over internet content, distribution and service. We have to pass the law to know what is in the law. Pardon me if I do not trust that line or method of restricting freedom of capitalistic association. $1,500/month health insurance with a $6,000/year deductible, anyone? that worked out well now that we can see it after we passed it.