Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On

[sonofdaxjones]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/11/11/why-obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-could-actually-ruin-it/

The president’s intervention is troubling, in part because as an independent regulatory agency, the FCC is supposed to be immune from White House influence.

Yeah, Mr. President keep your opinions to yourself. You are the leader of the free world, why don't you go play golf or something.

Or the flipside; do whatever I want, whenver I want, and if you try to be, you know, like a Congress should be in a tricameral system then I'll just ignore you and do my own thing.

Elected despostism?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Cuban correctly understands that wireless technology will soon neutralize the wired ISPs hold on their monopoly, and no need to change the current model, which we all love.

[CNS]

Yup.  Just like the cordless phone ended Ma Bell's throat.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yup.  Just like the cordless phone ended Ma Bell's throat.

If you mean cell phone, you are correct.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

[sonofdaxjones]

Why shouldn't everyone be down with what is rapdily becoming, or already is the most regulatory invasive government(s) (Federal, State and Local) in the industrialized world?   

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

The government trying to set tariffs or price controls, for starters.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/andy-kessler-the-department-of-the-internet-1415665771

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

The government trying to set tariffs or price controls, for starters.

Any legitimate downsides, though?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

The government trying to set tariffs or price controls, for starters.

Any legitimate downsides, though?

Those are very legitimate downsides. Give the article above a read, just for an example.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's sad how easily and instincitvely the libtards flock towards more government regulation as the answer to all perceived market problems. "Let's regulate the internet as a public utility! What could possibly be the downside of that?" Maybe need to change the name to libtardsheep or libtardlemmings? I don't want to get too cumbersome, but it's tough to jettison eitheir lib or tard.

Can you actually think of a downside?

The government trying to set tariffs or price controls, for starters.

Any legitimate downsides, though?

Those are very legitimate downsides. Give the article above a read, just for an example.

page not found

[Tobias]

page not found

msnbcDSL?

[Cartierfor3]

I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

Maybe, but why take the chance? Probably better to just let a federal agency step and make this all ok.

[Cartierfor3]

I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

Maybe, but why take the chance? Probably better to just let a federal agency step and make this all ok.

I'm being serious hoping for an honest rebuttal from someone who thinks differently than I do. Save the snark. My question was sincere and my views on this are not yet molded.

[Tobias]

I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

it's been pretty sweet so far, though there have been recent attempts to chisel away at this as the internet continues to gain a stronghold as a revenue generating media outlet.  ISPs have generally been able to toe the line of being good citizens for the most part, but for like 90% of consumers, there is no "market" to work it out with.  the Verizon v. FCC verdict this january removed the FCC's ability to enforce net neutrality orders put on the books in 2010, so it's basically fair game now for all ISPs to do what they want.  people for the most part have seen what the long-exempt wireless providers have done (blocking things like skype, facetime, vonage etc on their network) and see the writing on the wall (e.g. verizon throttling netflix in attempts to push their own redbox instant).

it's pretty much an attempt to keep us going on the internet we grew up with, rather than something like in the infographic at http://www.theopeninter.net/

[Rage Against the McKee]

I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

The problem as I see it is that the people responsible for selling high speed internet are the same people who are trying to sell you cable television. This isn't a solution to a made up problem. Providers are asking the FCC to allow them to prioritize internet traffic with "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" and the FCC proposed to allow this in April. This would mean that services you use the internet for that do not pay a special fee to your ISP would not work as well. I would expect services that decide to pay the fee, like Netflix, would pass that cost on to their customers, so you end up paying more. There are also a lot of services on the internet, such as distance learning from universities, that would be unlikely to pay the fee. The proposed regulations are aiming to keep the internet open and free, which should encourage growth in the online sector. Things are likely to get a lot worse without the regs, since there really isn't much of a market to speak of that would work things out.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Pretty cool to see how attune the libtards are to "passing costs on" with net neutrality, compared to every other pet project they support that fucks over the working class and poor.

Also pretty cool to see how oblivious they are to the dangers and consequences of undemocratically imposing the will and whims of the then existing administration upon the people via regulation.

[gatoveintisiete]

I doubt this is a good vs. evil debate, more like two groups positioning themselves to see who gets to powerfuck the internet and its consumers.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Is there anything that has become less expensive when the government gets involved? I can't think of anything.

[Cartierfor3]

I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

it's been pretty sweet so far, though there have been recent attempts to chisel away at this as the internet continues to gain a stronghold as a revenue generating media outlet.  ISPs have generally been able to toe the line of being good citizens for the most part, but for like 90% of consumers, there is no "market" to work it out with.  the Verizon v. FCC verdict this january removed the FCC's ability to enforce net neutrality orders put on the books in 2010, so it's basically fair game now for all ISPs to do what they want.  people for the most part have seen what the long-exempt wireless providers have done (blocking things like skype, facetime, vonage etc on their network) and see the writing on the wall (e.g. verizon throttling netflix in attempts to push their own redbox instant).

it's pretty much an attempt to keep us going on the internet we grew up with, rather than something like in the infographic at http://www.theopeninter.net/

Yeah but isn't the lack of multiple ISPs for most people due to the gov. letting certain ones just monopolize a city or neighborhood? Like, if they let all the companies have access to consumers, there would be multiple options for people who want different things. Like it would be similar to only having dominoes in your hood, when in mine I can choose between like 30 pizzas and they all send me coupons and stuff and compete for a place in my tummy. Isn't that the real issue? Not enough competition?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Is there anything that has become less expensive when the government gets involved? I can't think of anything.

food

[Spracne]

I mean, hasn't the internet basically been unregulated since its start, and been like, super awesome? Can't the market work this one out?

it's been pretty sweet so far, though there have been recent attempts to chisel away at this as the internet continues to gain a stronghold as a revenue generating media outlet.  ISPs have generally been able to toe the line of being good citizens for the most part, but for like 90% of consumers, there is no "market" to work it out with.  the Verizon v. FCC verdict this january removed the FCC's ability to enforce net neutrality orders put on the books in 2010, so it's basically fair game now for all ISPs to do what they want.  people for the most part have seen what the long-exempt wireless providers have done (blocking things like skype, facetime, vonage etc on their network) and see the writing on the wall (e.g. verizon throttling netflix in attempts to push their own redbox instant).

it's pretty much an attempt to keep us going on the internet we grew up with, rather than something like in the infographic at http://www.theopeninter.net/

Yeah but isn't the lack of multiple ISPs for most people due to the gov. letting certain ones just monopolize a city or neighborhood? Like, if they let all the companies have access to consumers, there would be multiple options for people who want different things. Like it would be similar to only having dominoes in your hood, when in mine I can choose between like 30 pizzas and they all send me coupons and stuff and compete for a place in my tummy. Isn't that the real issue? Not enough competition?

I guess if pizza companies had to dig little tunnels between the store and every house in their service area in order to deliver you a pizza...

It is incredibly expensive to build out fiber networks in urban areas (or anywhere, but especially urban areas).  Huge capital is required.  At a certain point, it's not worth it to make the investment for a relatively small slice of the pie (see what I did there?). 

[Tobias]

Yeah but isn't the lack of multiple ISPs for most people due to the gov. letting certain ones just monopolize a city or neighborhood? Like, if they let all the companies have access to consumers, there would be multiple options for people who want different things. Like it would be similar to only having dominoes in your hood, when in mine I can choose between like 30 pizzas and they all send me coupons and stuff and compete for a place in my tummy. Isn't that the real issue? Not enough competition?

the same companies which provide your cable internet or DSL are also your franchise utility companies which are licensed to work under public roadways, within easements, etc (there's a reason there aren't 10 different options for water service, sewer service, etc - this type of work is incredibly expensive and would be a logistical maintenance nightmare for the public and private companies).

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Is there anything that has become less expensive when the government gets involved? I can't think of anything.

food

Subsidies don't really make things cheaper.