Vote for Net Neutrality

[Prokofy Neva]

@Innula Zenovka "by and large" you have free markets -- but you also have socialism and that's why countries like the Netherlands were early enthusiasts for "net neutrality".

In fact, you will find that "manipulation of traffic for commercial advantage" will be legally pursued under existing law here as well even after the abolition of Obama's bureaucratically- imposed rules. The issue at hand is whether this could be pre-emptively banned under rules, or prosecuted after the fact. And since no one has made the case that this was some kind of systematic or recurrent practice, the decision seems reasonable to remove preemptive control and the damper on investment that went with this.

I could also point out that this is a policy made by a government agency about a scarce good about which there is controversy -- and that remains the case whether you are for or against net neutrality. I think matters of that magnitude shouldn't be decided by government agencies (as they were under Obama, who first started this abuse on this particular topic) and now continues. Radical activists may flash-mob Congress and force a vote on whether it is "proper," but the point is, it should have started as a matter of law and legislation, not rule, and be voted on as a *political* matter *about a scarce resource* which is what it is about.

Political matters are informed by ideologies, and the ideologies of socialism and capitalism conflict, and the only way to resolve them is by liberal democracy under the rule of law.

The idea that there is this "messing around" of which you speak is largely a hysterical hypothetical of the net neutrality lobbyists. Some of the carriers pledge not to do this; it isn't enough because they hate telecoms generically and want to kill them off as an entity, following Google's diktat.

But no one has been able to convincingly gather cases of these "monopolists" or "greedy robber barons" or whatever you want to call them actually doing the thing they claim. And if they do, there are ways to remedy this in the courts.

It's an ideological battle, at root. Lefty geeks try to insist it's a settled matter of "technology" or "scientific fact" (a function of the "Two Sciences" problem) and their lobbyists piously insist it is a matter of "morals" (about "greed") or even "human rights" (pretending that the Internet is a human right, which it is not). 

But the reality, again, is that it is *an ideological battle* about how you best deal with scarce resources that the government should not be required to pay for in full in a liberal capitalist society (because THAT ideological battle was already won when Sanders didn't become president, for example). And ideological batters are better treated through voting and the political process and not fiat.

But again, it was Obama who first introduced the fiat in his direction, and like so many Obamaisms, no one on the left cared because it was their political program.

[Prokofy Neva]

10 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Yeah. And? I mean, there are a tiny number of US markets with sufficient residential unit density to support more than two even tolerably "broadband" carriers, and in fact the San Francisco Bay area is among the very lucky ones who have a decent alternative (SonicNet) not among the usual cast of duopolists. New York is also relatively well served, including at least some penetration of Verizon's FiOS, the telco fibre service that's no longer being expanded, so that's a viable alternative to TimeWarner cable (which may or may not become part of AT&T). But again, the vast majority of the overall US market is served by one or two of the three same carriers, and in those with two, almost always the incumbent telco has only twisted-pair DSL to the home.

I never approached any "human rights" argument concerning bandwidth. I'm strictly speaking about that "not very developed market" and the economic opportunities squandered by structural anti-competitive deregulation. This action is nothing like true deregulation which would entail revoking all licenses restricting wired and wireless access -- imagine that coming out of Pai's industry-lapdog FCC! -- and instead the terms explicitly forbid state and local governments from offering pro-competition remedies.

When San Franciscan techies complain bitterly about ComCast, they never say "oh, but there's SonicNet". Their solution is to remove Comcast from the planet.

If there's just one competitor, it's not a monopolist. If there is more than one, even if in some areas there is only one, you can't properly speak of a monopolist.

I find it hilarious that people who say "but Bing" to the monopolist behavior of Google can't concede Verizon to Time Warner LOL.

Investment has fallen during the two years the "net neutrality" has been in place. During this time, there haven't been any high profile cases where evil, greedy telecoms were reined in by "net neutrality" rules. It's all a fiction.

It's funny that you call the FCC "an industry lapdog" under Pai, but you weren't willing to call it the same kind of lap-dog -- only to leftist university intellectuals and political operatives -- when Obama ran it. Government agencies shouldn't be abused by either the left and right, which is why this should have become a legal rather a regulatory matter. And eventually it will. Along the way, we will see the flashmobs overthrow frightened legislators who may fear voting against the tech PC platform (as they did with SOPA and CISPA, with awful results), and will be portrayed as "stupid" or "undemocratic" if they don't. But eventually they will get up to speed and the matter of *a scarce resources* will be decided by law, not ideology because there's no government available to pay for it all (like health care). BTW, many states had free or low-cost means-tested health care plans long before ObamaCare. In the use, matters of health, education and welfare are left to the prerogative of the states, not the federal government, due to widely differing levels of affluence and political views in every state. And so the issue of "the Internet" might get the same treatment, despite calls for it (improperly) being viewed as "like" a federal highway system. 

Just as you saw some states piously announce they would defy the FCC overturn of "net neutrality," you could see it go the other way. The US is a big territory, not like Europe, and has large individual states that may go their own way.

The history of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is instructive to read regarding FDR's effort to impose regulation of electrical power in ways that were viewed as socialist, the wars over this, and the fact that some earlier controversies were obviated when nuclear power was invented. And so on.

But as much as some leftists want to turn "net neutrality" into a TVA-like story, and may succeed under this or that political administration, there's a big difference between electricity, which is a simple thing flowing in two directions, and the Internet, even based as it is on electricity. The TVA didn't have stores and shopping catalogues and a search service...

 

 

[Callum Meriman]

[Qie Niangao]

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

It's funny that you call the FCC "an industry lapdog" under Pai, but you weren't willing to call it the same kind of lap-dog -- only to leftist university intellectuals and political operatives -- when Obama ran it.

Are you kidding? The FCC has been an industry lapdog for decades. The only difference was that under Tom Wheeler they acknowledged that DOJ had fallen asleep at the wheel of the Sherman Act and were allowing accelerating vertical integration and consolidation in information services and telecom.

No, I'm not going down some TVA rabbit hole, nor will I follow the usual rants over how many Bolsheviks can dance on the head of a pin.

This is Ajit Pai. 

He's scum.

The FCC acted shamefully.

[Theresa Tennyson]

6 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

1. Google and Facebook do not merely "provide a software"; they are not just social media networks but ad agencies that benefit from the Internet, it's their business.

2. Both Google and Facebook monopolize search and social media even if they have rivals.

 

People don't connect to the internet just to be connected to something - they connect to it in order to do something. If Google and Facebook are the powerful ones, why don't they charge the ISP's to carry them? That's the way things work in cable television.

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

In the use, matters of health, education and welfare are left to the prerogative of the states, not the federal government, due to widely differing levels of affluence and political views in every state. And so the issue of "the Internet" might get the same treatment, despite calls for it (improperly) being viewed as "like" a federal highway system. 

Just as you saw some states piously announce they would defy the FCC overturn of "net neutrality," you could see it go the other way. The US is a big territory, not like Europe, and has large individual states that may go their own way.

 

How? The FCC [i.e. Socialist Gummint] decision to overturn net neutrality also prevents states from re-instituting it locally.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/

[Innula Zenovka]

11 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The issue at hand is whether this could be pre-emptively banned under rules, or prosecuted after the fact.

I don't understand.  If you're going to prosecute someone, there has to be a rule of some sort you can point to and say the defendant has broken.    

 

11 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

But no one has been able to convincingly gather cases of these "monopolists" or "greedy robber barons" or whatever you want to call them actually doing the thing they claim. And if they do, there are ways to remedy this in the courts.

Again, if you want the court to remedy something, you have to be able to tell the court why the behaviour you complain of is unlawful.    You can't just tell the judge "I don't think this sort of thing should be allowed, so please put a stop to it."   You be able to point to the relevant law and say why the misconduct you allege is contrary to it.

I really don't understand how the American regulatory system works, in that the FCC clearly has far more autonomy than does Ofcom, the equivalent British regulatory body.  Here the regulations are made either by Parliament or by the appropriate Secretary of State, using powers that have been granted by Parliament.   Ofcom's role is to monitor and enforce compliance with regulations, not to make them (though it can certainly advise the Secretary of State that it thinks she should revise existing regulations or introduce new ones).    Clearly it's different in the USA but presumably the FCC were acting lawfully, since if they weren't there were, as you say, ways to remedy this in the courts.

It may very well be that American ISPs wouldn't dream of behaving in the way some supporters of net neutrality are suggesting they will if they're given half a chance, but in that case, what's the objection to having regulations that say that they aren't allowed to even if they want to, rather than simply rely on their good behaviour?

For what it's worth, I think it would have made far more sense for the FCC to ask the various ISPs what it is that they want to do that they're prevented from doing by existing regulations, and what they would like to see changed, and then take it from there.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Innula Zenovka

[Theresa Tennyson]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

But no one has been able to convincingly gather cases of these "monopolists" or "greedy robber barons" or whatever you want to call them actually doing the thing they claim. And if they do, there are ways to remedy this in the courts.

You mean like this?

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

18 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

"who I have met, and who is a man of utter decency and integrity," -- well now, we've taken your measure. Corbyn is a notorious antisemite, a Putin lover, an Assad apologist and much more, as anybody who can read a newspaper has discovered now, so the tankies can't keep it to themselves any more. And it's typical of haters that they project others as being haters, or rising to bait or getting their "knickers in a twist" when it is merely calm and collected reasoning against hysterical, wishful thinking based on socialist ideology. The reason I am griefed is because a) griefers are criminals and do that b) the Lindens snicker and are dilatory, because c) people like you support it socially. That's all. It's not about me being anything, that's not what it is about. Assad, Putin, etc. thrive for the same reasons, the same dynamics, although of course on a wildly different scale. So I'm glad we see what you're about now and once you've got someone saying Corby is a man of "utter decency" then you know it is never worth debating the person. You see, this is why socialism, net neutrality, all of it get a bad name. This. 

 

golly prok, no need for personal abuse; isn't that a bit rude?  chuh.

[Phil Deakins]

18 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

"who I have met, and who is a man of utter decency and integrity," -- well now, we've taken your measure. Corbyn is a notorious antisemite, a Putin lover, an Assad apologist and much more, as anybody who can read a newspaper has discovered now, so the tankies can't keep it to themselves any more. And it's typical of haters that they project others as being haters, or rising to bait or getting their "knickers in a twist" when it is merely calm and collected reasoning against hysterical, wishful thinking based on socialist ideology. The reason I am griefed is because a) griefers are criminals and do that b) the Lindens snicker and are dilatory, because c) people like you support it socially. That's all. It's not about me being anything

You believe everything you read in newspapers? My, aren't you the gullible one? lol. Nevertheless, show us some newspaper articles that state that Jeremy Corbyn is "a notorious antisemite, a Putin lover, an Assad apologist and much more". The one you linked to doesn't say anything like that. You give the impression of being an angry person by nature, and like to attack anyone and anything that comes in front of you. And, of course, when there's nothing to attack in front of you, you go out of your way to find something, even though you are wrong in what you find - as I know from personal experience You still daren't post the URL to that bit of your blog. Y'know, that dialog between us where I comprehensively proved that you were wrong, and where you just couldn't bring yourself to admit to having been mistaken

I showed you up about that statement earlier in the thread, so I'll refrain from doing it again here.

Correction: The reason you are griefed so much is solely because you are what you are and you do what you do. Pixieplum does not support griefing. Nobody does except the griefers, although I have to admit that there's a very good chance that some people would not be too against it in your case. Other people are posting that they see less griefing these days, but you post that you still suffer from it. Any averagely rational person would add 2 and 2 together to make 4, but not you. You are wholly convinced that it's the rest of the world that is rong, but not you. Come to think of it, I've never seen you admit to being mistaken about something. You just disappear when you are shown to be wrong, presumably concluding that the others are just, what's your phrase?, 'ignorant gits'?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[RobertJamieson]

is like everything online, the coms, service providers, search engines, user apps, creators, designers, sl, cable companies etc and et and et. Each has own agenda and user/owner/operator standards. the open market, the free market, manipulation, trickery and naievity of each user has made these people billlions. all though i do not agree with everyone or anyone or what the previous bs democrats wanted. any change is going to affect/effect their daily running of any business and of course ours! so at end of it all. what the hell is the right thing (or not) to do. all smoke and mirrors as always!

[Luna Bliss]

20 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

On 12/13/2017 at 10:40 AM, Luna Bliss said:

Why do you dislike Silicon Valley so much?

If you have to ask that question after being inside Second Life for so many years and experiencing many of the negative features of Silicon Valley yourself, I don't know where to start. But read my blog Wired State. I was simply early with my critique, it's now all over the place.

I think your hatred of "geeks" is blinding you to the realities of the other side. Yes, tech needs to be reeled in a bit and be governed by the same laws everyone else is, but this corporate takeover now underway has much worse ramifications.
I did enjoy reading your Wired State blog though, as it made me see a few things I wasn't aware of regarding 'the left'.

[Luna Bliss]

I really like this excerpt from an article by Caitlin Johnstone:

"People are right to be extremely guarded about internet regulations. Throughout the history of human civilization access to information has been controlled and manipulated by those in power, countless generations of which have given rise to the profoundly sick power-serving society we find ourselves in today. The invention of the internet gave humanity its first ever access to widespread unhindered democratization of ideas and information, and if we’re ever to overthrow the pernicious power structures which perpetuate the continual omnicidal trend toward war and ecocide which threatens us our species with extinction, widespread internet access will surely play a role in that effort.
America’s unelected power establishment is acutely aware of this, which is why attempts to censor the internet on a large scale are becoming increasingly common. So it’s perfectly understandable that when a former Verizon lawyer becomes Chairman of the FCC and begins aggressively spearheading a crusade to fix a problem Americans didn’t even see as a problem, people will be suspicious. It is the duty of Ajit Pai to win Americans over to his position, not force it down their throats and then whine when he receives death threats for it.

FCC Commissioner Says Internet Access Is "Not a Necessity"
Here is what FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly had to say during the debate about net neutrality in 2015:
“It is important to note that Internet access is not a necessity in the day-to-day lives of Americans and doesn’t even come close to the threshold to be considered a basic human right… People do a disservice by overstating its relevancy or stature in people’s lives. People can and do live without Internet access, and many lead very successful lives.”
Do those sound like the words of someone who is trying to ensure that humanity has widespread internet access to you? This man cast the third and final vote to repeal net neutrality today.

The internet is the frontier of humanity’s development as a species. Three unelected bureaucrats have no business manipulating it in a way the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want. Regardless of whether they feel internet access should be a human right or not, defending that access undeniably is. People are aware of this. Their rulers’ contempt for them is showing clear as day, and people are becoming aware that they must defend themselves from unelected corporatists who do not serve their interests."

[Phil Deakins]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

I did enjoy reading your Wired State blog though, as it made me see a few things I wasn't aware of regarding 'the left'.

Without proof, I wouldn't put too much store in what Prok writes. Even in this thread, she's been shown to be completely wrong in what she stated as fact.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I did enjoy reading your Wired State blog though, as it made me see a few things I wasn't aware of regarding 'the left'.

Without proof, I wouldn't put too much store in what Prok writes. Even in this thread, she's been shown to be completely wrong in what she stated as fact.

Yes, I have found her to be wrong many times, and I will be fact-checking.

[Luna Bliss]

Most notably, in relation to this debate, her assertion that only a few people have only one choice of broadband internet. There are maps showing coverage, and I believe it's 61%  in the US that have only one choice, and a good percentage more have only 2 choices....and even with 2 choices that is not competition.

Many of the poor have no broadband connection choice at all:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/05/12/19659/rich-people-have-access-high-speed-internet-many-poor-people-still-dont

Edited December 15, 2017 by Luna Bliss

[Phil Deakins]

40 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Most notably, in relation to this debate, her assertion that only a few people have only one choice of broadband internet.

Perhaps she meant only a few people in her street lol.

[Innula Zenovka]

6 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

You mean like this?

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

From the article:

Quote

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

In the UK, companies whose intellectual property is being shared without their consent by peer-to-peer networks have to go the High Court and  seek an injunction under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act directing British ISPs to block these sites.   This seems to me far better than allowing companies to take (or not) their own unilateral action.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Innula Zenovka

[Love Zhaoying]

13 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

In the use, matters of health, education and welfare are left to the prerogative of the states, not the federal government, due to widely differing levels of affluence and political views in every state. And so the issue of "the Internet" might get the same treatment, despite calls for it (improperly) being viewed as "like" a federal highway system. 

Does this mean "in the U.S./USA"?

[Love Zhaoying]

*Ahem* I am old enough to remember that the "Internet" began as ARPANet, and in fact I first used it during the transition when Universities had BITNet for communicating between each other's mainframes. What a long way we have come from a NATIONAL DEFENSE DEVELOPED NETWORK (lookup ARPA or ARPANet) system to something we use every day for every purpose.

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Does this mean "in the U.S./USA"?

I would guess yes.  Golly, states rights, eh?  Isn't that usually a synonym for proud to be backward?

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

I would guess yes.  Golly, states rights, eh?  Isn't that usually a synonym for proud to be backward?

States' rights to:

- Have their votes count more proportionally than more populous states

- Deny Medicaid coverage offered under the ACA

- Continue the legacy of Racism

- etc.

[Prokofy Neva]

15 hours ago, Pixieplumb Flanagan said:

I would guess yes.  Golly, states rights, eh?  Isn't that usually a synonym for proud to be backward?

My God, always such ignorance about the realities of the United States because of such virulent hatred, a product of media shaping and not without Russian help these days.

Er, no, dears. You wouldn't say states' rights were "backward" when a state abolished the death penalty or legalized gay marriage while others didn't. Or in fact abolished shalvery and provided its own health care coverage when others didn't. Oh, well.

[Prokofy Neva]

19 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes, I have found her to be wrong many times, and I will be fact-checking.

There isn't any fact I've stated here that has proved to be wrong. Instead, there's a blind worship of Google's agenda and everything related to its lobbying positions. Astounding, really, but I'm used to it.

I've long ago learned only to pity Phil Deakins when I see the reality and his ignorance about the realities of Jeremy Corbyn are only more indications of the real problems of socialism.

 

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/15/2017 at 4:13 AM, Qie Niangao said:

Are you kidding? The FCC has been an industry lapdog for decades. The only difference was that under Tom Wheeler they acknowledged that DOJ had fallen asleep at the wheel of the Sherman Act and were allowing accelerating vertical integration and consolidation in information services and telecom.

No, I'm not going down some TVA rabbit hole, nor will I follow the usual rants over how many Bolsheviks can dance on the head of a pin.

This is Ajit Pai. 

He's scum.

The FCC acted shamefully.

What, Qie, you're admitting that Obama is an industry lapdog? That's another debate, but the point is, this isn't about industry, it's about ideology. Net neutrality/socialism under Obama; no net neutrality/capitalism under Trump. 

Ajit Pai isn't anything like the caricature on this lefty blog, and he's right to use the ridicule that his enemies use constantly. I'll tell you who is scum -- the 4 channers who go to his house and put up posters threatening his children. The insanity of people opposing this rational decision that if applied to climate change denial would be cause for a civil war.

I see you've lost your usual rationality on this subject too. It really is a religious fervour, this net neutrality.