Vote for Net Neutrality

[Prokofy Neva]

19 hours 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. 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

Because broadband is a scarce resource that costs money, it can't be supplied to everyone in the amounts they crave (WoW players, Second Lifers, YouTubers) and the poor can't be subsidized as much as they like. It's a good that has to be made available on a market place because there aren't enough resources from taxpayers to provide it for free, no country does that except what, Iceland? And look how broke they were... 

Public Integrity is being quite biased and ideologically shrill here. One obvious point is that poor service doesn't necessarily equal poor people. I know remote areas in Maine, for example, where rich or poor, you don't have good Internet service because it is remote. You also have to drive 50 miles to the nearest Walmart. Nobody clamours here for the government to install more Walmarts at 25 miles distance. We might better put such money as there is into real-life roads which are appalling. And hey, enable all those trucks with all those Internet purchases on Amazon reach their destination, eh?

The operative point here is that your side in this debate lost, and for good reason. And now we'll get to see if all the horrors you claimed of poor people being left uneducated and greedy telecom barons pillaging "the people" come to pass. Just like under Obama, when there was net neutrality, we didn't see a lot happen except investment go down. None of these glories of education and development occurred, of course. Life is more complicated than the Internet unicorn believers realize.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/14/2017 at 7:16 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

I will give you a real-world example - me.

My E-mail address (AOL) and the search engine I use most (Yahoo) are currently owned by an ISP (Verizon.) This was not a choice I made - Verizon bought those entities long after I established a relationship with them.

So, if Verizon gave AOL and Yahoo preferential rates I'd benefit - if I could use Verizon for my home internet service.

But I can't. My choices are ATT (a tooth and nail competitor of Verizon) and Xfinity/Comcast (a.k.a. the Whore of Babylon). Therefore I use ATT. Verizon will never offer me wired internet service because the necessary lines are owned by ATT, and ATT and Verizon are both mushrooms off the rotting corpse of the old Bell Telephone System.

Now what happens if ATT (a competitor of Verizon) and Alphabet/Google (a competitor of Yahoo and AOL) decide to get together and treat Google traffic preferentially and slow down competitive services? I'm placed at a disadvantage all because of factors I had no choice in and have no control over.

The problem with your hypotheticals is that they didn't come to pass before we had net neutrality and they won't come to pass now. This is why this argument is so specious. It hasn't happened and won't happen. If by some chance it does in whole and in part in some region or globally, there are other remedies besides FCC rules. But more to the point, Yahoo has no need and would lose customers if it behaved this way. Meanwhile, Google wants to kill off Verizon merely because it hates telecoms and they won't bow to its bidding.

[Klytyna]

18 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

we didn't see a lot happen except investment go down.

If you knew anything about infrastructure based technologies, or business, you'd know that 'investment' ALWAYS goes down...

Once you finish building a road from point A to point B, you don't tear it up and build it again, or build a second road 10 feet to the left of the first, you lower investment, and simply maintain the road, occasionally upgrading it a bit.

Once high speed glass fibre has been laid to Sleepy Buttburg, to connect it to the internet by Megabucks Internet inc, NO OTHER COMPANY is going to bother investing in laying cable there unless they absolutely have to, because 20 companies trying to build 20 separate & isolated continent spanning internets coast to coast, is, and I'm going to use a technical expression here...

AN EXAMPLE OF THE UNLICENCED  POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL QUANTITIES OF WEAPONS GRADE STUPIDITY BY MEMBERS OF THE FREE MARKET FALLACY FATHEAD CABAL
 

[Theresa Tennyson]

33 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The problem with your hypotheticals is that they didn't come to pass before we had net neutrality and they won't come to pass now. This is why this argument is so specious. It hasn't happened and won't happen. If by some chance it does in whole and in part in some region or globally, there are other remedies besides FCC rules. But more to the point, Yahoo has no need and would lose customers if it behaved this way. Meanwhile, Google wants to kill off Verizon merely because it hates telecoms and they won't bow to its bidding.

VERIZON OWNS YAHOO.

It now exists largely to serve Verizon, a competitor of my regional-monopoly ISP.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

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.

 

Here's what you said about cable companies:

3. Cable companies are not local monopolies. What historical year are you stuck in? There are multiple cable companies in most places. But let's say in some remote territory in Maine there's only one. Why does Google get to do this but not Verizon?

This is an interactive map of wired pay TV coverage in the United States. You should note that Charter and Time-Warner are now merged. Frontier and CenturyLink are actually former telephone companies using the old phone network and not cable television companies.

https://www.cabletv.com/availability-map

[Theresa Tennyson]

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Because broadband is a scarce resource that costs money, it can't be supplied to everyone in the amounts they crave (WoW players, Second Lifers, YouTubers) and the poor can't be subsidized as much as they like. It's a good that has to be made available on a market place because there aren't enough resources from taxpayers to provide it for free, no country does that except what, Iceland? And look how broke they were... 

 

Most people in this thread (including the poster you quoted) aren't saying that it should. The post you quoted said that people living in poor areas don't have a choice of internet providers (i.e. there isn't a market.)

Personally, I'm not adamant about net neutrality staying exactly the way it is. I could accept one of two alternate outcomes.

1) I could accept the current ISP ownership situation staying the same and ISP's doing things like charging more for things like higher-speed streaming video if they treated all traffic of that type the same instead of picking and choosing certain providers to have a relationship with.

or

2) I could accept ISP's developing relationships with selected providers to subsidize service if they'd open their lines to competing ISP's so that I could choose from the widest possible number of packages/collaborators.

With the current changes in regulations the ISP's are getting their bread buttered on both sides and I'll be paying for it whether I'm in the mood for butter or not.

ETA - and broadband capacity isn't even a "scarce resource" once you get past the cable companies' and phone companies' janked-up old wiring. Once you get into the main "backbones" there's a tremendous amount of spare capacity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fibre

You know, maybe it is Opposite Day. It's always so hard to tell - if you ask and it isn't they tell you, "No, it isn't Opposite Day,", but if you ask and it is they'll still tell you, "No, it isn't Opposite Day."

Edited December 16, 2017 by Theresa Tennyson

[Phil Deakins]

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

There isn't any fact I've stated here that has proved to be wrong.

How about this?

On 13/12/2017 at 3:46 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

Meanwhile, British citizens voted the Labour Party out of office after years of its stranglehold on power because socialism wasn't working. And liberals came to power and got a bashing, then conservative

That was absolutely wrong. You've no idea what you're talking about, have you? As somebody once put it, "anybody who can read a newspaper" knows that you are wrong. As I said before, you sound as though you know what you are talking about, because you write it with apparent authority, but you don't.

 

=======================================================================================

On 14/12/2017 at 6:19 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

Corbyn is a notorious antisemite, a Putin lover, an Assad apologist and much more, as anybody who can read a newspaper has discovered now

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

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.

I already asked you to show evidence that Jeremy Curbyn is what you said he is, but you've failed to do that. Just another miserable failure among many on your part - making statements as facts but having nothing to demonstrate it, other that your say-so.

The only reason you've learned to see me in a negative light is because I kicked your butt in your own blog when you accused me of something that wasn't true. I showed you up in front of your own readers by proving you were wrong, and none of your  readers came to your aid. They couldn't, because everyone knew that you were totally wrong. Only you soldiered on against the insurmountable, until you quietly bowed out with your tail between your legs. (Post the URL and let's all have a good laugh at your expense! ) That's why you see me in a negative way. And, of course, that's when I started to see you for what you really are.

 

=======================================================================================

On 14/12/2017 at 6:19 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

And it's typical of haters that they project others as being haters

Streuth! You just don't learn, do you? Allow me to remind you - again!

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

My God, always such ignorance about the realities of the United States because of such virulent hatred

That's twice in this thread that you've accused others of hating, while at the same time saying that it's typical of haters to project others as being haters lol. According to you, you are a hater. According to your own words, you are what you incorrectly accuse others of being. I doubt that anyone is in the slightest bit surprised. If you could remember what you write from one day to the next, maybe you wouldn't fall foul of things you say yourself. You have only yourself to blame.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

VERIZON OWNS YAHOO.

Yahoo! could have owned Google. The boys offered it to Yahoo! when they'd completed their degrees, but Yahoo! declined it, suggesting that the boys start their own search engine, which they did. Yahoo! didn't even have a search engine at the time (their search engine section was powered by other engines). I wonder how much they've regretted that decision since then. Yahoo! wouldn't have made the success of it that the boys did, but at least Google wouldn't have sunk Yahoo! to the degree that it did.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[encidious Opus]

Pixieplumb Flanagan and Phil Deakins, if you compare yours posts to Prokofy Neva posts, I observe many more personal slurs from both of you. If you aren't lobbing direct insults you insert passive aggressive barbs. 

[Phil Deakins]

You're counting? lol. I don't think you'll find any insults, flames, or anything of that nature from me. Little barbs, maybe What you will find is the truth though. If I show Prok up for something she wrote, it's not a barb or an insult, but the truth. And I have no qualms about doing that to Prok.

You will find many personal barbs from prok to various people though. Just a few posts up on this page, she was quoted as saying, "What historical year are you stuck in?" to somebody. It's not nasty but it's one of many such little barbs that she's written in this thread. It's what she does. So I think your counting has gone a little astray

ETA: If you're counting my references to a dialogue in her blog, I must point out that she was the one who started with those references. I wouldn't have mentioned it if she hadn't done it first. It was a long time ago now, but she liked to bring it up from time to time. She used to claim to have kicked my butt, but she would never post the URL for everyone to see. I don't blame her for not posting it, though, because it would show her up, not only because she was soundly beaten, but also because it would show that she'd been dishonest about kicking my butt.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

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.

Who abolished shalvery?  and why?????  I loved it, oh the nights my friends and I would shalve together and sing songs and pop corn - <sigh> such good times.

[Phil Deakins]

How come I was never invited?

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

Also, sheesh, i pop out to buy a few bare essentials of life (speaking of which, it seems sainsbury no longer stock the light varieties of Belvoir fruit squash.  shocking.) and when i come back there's argy bargy and shenanigans.  tish and pish, next time you jolly well wait for me.  meanies.  (Not Phil - he's m'chum.)

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

How come I was never invited?

you were - you had scouts that night, and then your mum said you were washing your hair.

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

3 hours ago, Klytyna said:

If you knew anything about infrastructure based technologies, or business, you'd know that 'investment' ALWAYS goes down...

Once you finish building a road from point A to point B, you don't tear it up and build it again, or build a second road 10 feet to the left of the first, you lower investment, and simply maintain the road, occasionally upgrading it a bit.

Once high speed glass fibre has been laid to Sleepy Buttburg, to connect it to the internet by Megabucks Internet inc, NO OTHER COMPANY is going to bother investing in laying cable there unless they absolutely have to, because 20 companies trying to build 20 separate & isolated continent spanning internets coast to coast, is, and I'm going to use a technical expression here...

AN EXAMPLE OF THE UNLICENCED  POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL QUANTITIES OF WEAPONS GRADE STUPIDITY BY MEMBERS OF THE FREE MARKET FALLACY FATHEAD CABAL
 

I like you, you're awesome xxxxxx

[Phil Deakins]

OH! She lied! Actually, she did the right thing because I never went to Scouts. I went to Guides instead. It was much more fun there - especially the camping weekends She only told you it was the Scouts so you didn't find out.

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

45 minutes ago, encidious Opus said:

Pixieplumb Flanagan and Phil Deakins, if you compare yours posts to Prokofy Neva posts, I observe many more personal slurs from both of you. If you aren't lobbing direct insults you insert passive aggressive barbs. 

uh huh.  nope.  moving on.

[Innula Zenovka]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

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. 

Sorry, but I don't understand that point, made in relation to Ajit Pai, probably because I'm not familiar with the US system.    

According to Wikipedia, Pai 

Quote

 

has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012, at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a five-year term 

In January 2017, President Donald Trump designated Pai as FCC Chairman.  In March 2017, Trump announced that he would renominate Pai to serve another five-year term (remaining Chairman of the FCC).  Pai was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for an additional five-year term on October 2, 2017.

 

Wikipedia also tells me that

Quote

 The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. 

So it looks as if the custom is, when necessary, for the President to ask the Senate leader of the party opposed to his party for nominations, in order to maintain the required balance on the commission.    When the vacancy currently occupied by Mr Pai opened up, President Obama had to appoint the opposition's nominee, so he asked Mitch McConnell to recommend someone.  

You will note that it Donald Trump who make Mr Pai the FCC Chairman, not President Obama.  

Other than that he was first appointed on President Obama's watch, at a time when there was a vacancy for a Republican nominee on the FCC and the Republicans put his name forward, could you please explain, for the benefit of those of us who are unfamiliar with the US system, why  Pai's chairmanship of the FCC is  Obama's responsibility?   Is it customary for the President to reject the Opposition's nominations for FCC slots when it's their turn to make one?

[Qie Niangao]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

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 [...]

You know that video is from Proud Boys, right? Pai really is scum and you really do not want to be seen trying to defend him.

And of course Obama was too gullible especially with the telecom industry. In fact, he originally appointed Pai as a junior commissioner on the FCC, another futile favor to McConnell for which he got nothing in return.

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

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.

You don't like Mr Obama, do you?  I bet he's all upset about that.

[Theresa Tennyson]

On 12/14/2017 at 7:45 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

A fact that Net Neutrality lobbyists can't defeat is the fall in investment after the Obama-tinkering occurred and net neutrality was forced in. Now you'll see the opposite.

 

They can't defeat that fall in investment because it didn't really happen the way the people you're listening to are telling you it did:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cripples-investment-thats-not-true/

Edited December 16, 2017 by Theresa Tennyson

[Innula Zenovka]

Seems to me that it's wholly proper for a government -- any government -- to have a policy on how best to encourage widespread access to a competitive market in high-speed broadband for both domestic and business customers, and then ask the ISPs and the regulators to work together to produce some detailed proposals about how to make that happen, including any necessary changes in the regulatory regime  and also financial and fiscal measures that might be necessary to achieve particular outcomes.

In the case of the US, I would also imagine that radically different policies might well be needed for different states, since geography and population density are clearly going to be factors in all this, and that both Federal and State governments need to be involved.

That's not to say that the ISPs and the regulators should dictate policy but it could only be helpful to have some detailed practical proposals about solving an  obviously complex problem.   

[Anna Nova]

10 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Here's what you said about cable companies:

3. Cable companies are not local monopolies. What historical year are you stuck in? There are multiple cable companies in most places. But let's say in some remote territory in Maine there's only one. Why does Google get to do this but not Verizon?

This is an interactive map of wired pay TV coverage in the United States. You should note that Charter and Time-Warner are now merged. Frontier and CenturyLink are actually former telephone companies using the old phone network and not cable television companies.

https://www.cabletv.com/availability-map

Even REMOTE territories in Maine has cable?  Sheesh! we only just got running water here.

[ChinRey]

Ummm, everybody...

In case you missed it, the decision was made two days ago. It's final and will last forever and a day. Or at least for months - last time they made a final decision on the topic, it lasted for more than two years!

The winner has posted a gloating video on YouTube and everything - just as responsible people in important public postions ought to.

[Pamela Galli]

States are filing a case against them based on the fake comments that were received.States are filing a case against them based on the fake comments that were received