Net Nuetrality

[smartguy]

Funny how people complain that Net Neutrality represents large government when it is government sponsored research and the military who invented the whole dam Internet.

[smartguy]

Yes, Mike and LMIT, it must feel very uncomfortable using a medium created by government investment and research to in fact whine about the very same all empowering government all the time.

[leech~~]

Yes, Mike and LMIT, it must feel very uncomfortable using a medium created by government investment and research to in fact whine about the very same all empowering government all the time.

Um, where does the Government get it's investment capital from again?

[LMITOUT]

Sounds like the NeoCon motto.You should be on board.

You should learn what neocon means.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Funny how people complain that Net Neutrality represents large government when it is government sponsored research and the military who invented the whole dam Internet.

Obama probably needs to consult with Al Gore on this issue.

[Whoaru99]

Um, where does the Government get it's investment capital from again?

And, I'm fairly sure it wasn't a crew of Gubmint dudes that put in the CATV feed to my house, nor the cable plant for the town, nor all the infrastruture and support therein.

[Juneau4]

It's called an infrastructure. With out a government there would be little or non.

[smartguy]

Um, where does the Government get it's investment capital from again?

Yes, the public funds it. yet, the government took the lead on it. Call it a successful Solyndra

[smartguy]

And, I'm fairly sure it wasn't a crew of Gubmint dudes that put in the CATV feed to my house, nor the cable plant for the town, nor all the infrastruture and support therein.

Maybe you have a point here. Are these the same companies that use public roads and infrastructure to complete their jobs? Is it fair to say they are joining the game after the government threw the first pitch (in other words government efforts initiated this type if industry to even develop? I bet some of these utilities loved the legal monopoly provisions bestowed upon them by government, too, in order to take root. (though that is now a thing of the past admittedly)

[swamptiger]

Obama owns the internet, therefore, he should be able to do whatever he pleases with it.

[Uncle Bill]

This thread should be re-titled to "Low Information Voters"

"call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass…" - Johnathan gruber (architect of obamacare)

Team obama is counting on you guys' once again.

"It's really, really, critical"....

Obviously, there are more than a few LIV's out there, that won't disappoint.

BTW, House republicans, voted net/neut down 240-179.

In the Senate the House bill had 39 co-sponsors. (It was going down there too).

Obama promised a veto.

In essence, Congress has already ruled on this.

Why would anyone want unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists writing the rules ?

[bobbymalone]

I bet some of these utilities loved the legal monopoly provisions bestowed upon them by government, too, in order to take root. (though that is now a thing of the past admittedly)

I've read that 1/3 Americans has only one choice on internet service providers.

[aanderud]

I've read that 1/3 Americans has only one choice on internet service providers.

I've lived in lots of communities, and the only places I've seen of that don't have at least two wired internet options (phone-company DSL of at least a minimal capacity and cable modem) are rural. And I think the percentage of population that is considered rural is MUCH less than 1/3. And today, even in rural-land you likely have some wireless options, and often at least two (satellite or terrestrial-based wireless). Are they always cheap? No, but options are almost always available. The 1/3 number seems like quite an exaggeration to me, especially in today's age of LTE.

I would guess that a lot of this "1/3" comes from private living arrangements that have nothing to do with regulations or cable company or telco monopolies. For instance, there are plenty of condo/apartment buildings where the owner furnishes the 'utilities', often including the cable TV, etc. You go with their satellite vendor or internet vendor, and you don't get a choice to order up comcast on a whim. But even here, I think with today's wireless products from ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, etc, you can't make the claim that they have no choices. That's 3-4 wireless vendors right there that will offer internet service to your apartment or condo, in addition to your wired options. Are all of the options cheap? No, but they are options.

Politicians or community action groups or anyone like to exaggerate on the extent of any problem to try to strengthen their argument. The trick is figuring out just what is an exaggeration and how bad the real problem is.

[swamptiger]

I only have one option, but it is a rural telephone co-op, with local elected directors.

[aanderud]

I only have one option, but it is a rural telephone co-op, with local elected directors.

One wired option. I'd be very surprised if you couldn't wireless through satellite as a secondary option. My friend had to do this for years before he could get DSL. It's probably more expensive and slower than your DSL through your telco, but it's likely an option. The satellite providers cover about all of the continental US. And most rural residents (but not all) also have coverage from at least one terrestrial wireless option (cellular and other variants). You may not in northern MN. Things get spotty up there with the low population density.

[swamptiger]

Satellite is not dependable where I live. I did have it for TV for a while and got rid of it.

Cell phone reception is also iffy. Works fine about 5 miles down the road.

[bobbymalone]

Probably should have clarified with wired internet.

Good thing insanely expensive options are still options. Try streaming Netflix over satellite internet. Or through your LTE hotspot. Tell us what the bill comes to.

And your telling us that we need to examine the facts and wade thru the bull? There is a certain amount of bull in suggesting satellite and wireless internet is a viable comparison to wired broadband.

[aanderud]

Probably should have clarified with wired internet.

...

There is a certain amount of bull in suggesting satellite and wireless internet is a viable comparison to wired broadband.

No, not really 'bull' when you look at the context -- because these other options are sufficient options for the "essential" parts of the internet that the leftist groups speak of when they whine about 'access for everyone' and the like, spending millions or billions of dollars to roll out more infrastructure in desolate sparsely populated places where the costs will never be recouped. Not a direct quote here but basically you hear that "Everyone needs great internet access so they can do things like apply for jobs, get educated, stay informed, blah blah blah", and then you have folks spending millions of taxpayer dollars to get those last 5 people down the road hooked up, when there are already options out there.

Hugesnet offers 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, and a 20 gigabyte monthly cap, for only $49.99. You call that insanely priced? I would guess if it's truly insane, other vendors would be jumping at the bit to compete and offer it lower.

Fact is, you can do a heck of a lot in 20 gigabytes per month. Can you stream netflix for hours per day or using your internet as a cable-TV replacement (with Roku and whatnot)? No, that's not going to happen. But, essential communications, pictures, news, forums, and even quite a bit of youtube are possible in 20 gigabytes per month.

If you or some small fraction of US citizens only have one option (or even 0 options) for doing highly optional things like streaming video from netflix, and the free market hasn't brought companies willing to invest in getting you more cost effective options, that's not something I'm worried about.

[tacklejunkie]

Yeah, can't understand why some of us might be wary of ANYTHING this President does.

No track record of incompetence to look back on. BTW, how did the take over of Health Care go? Definitely NO reason to be concerned.

I'm sure the reason behind no one trusting anything this administration does, will be attributed, by some, to be in the cards.

Mike

This post sums things up perfectly. Nobody trusts this president or believes anything he says anymore, save for the last few remaining hopey changers, some who have posted here. The Hopey Changers haven't figured out yet that the trust level of this president, and government in general, is at an all time low.

I have heard both the pros and cons on this issue. But based on the record thus far of this president, I'd go with the cons

[Uncle Bill]

Good thing insanely expensive options are still options. Try streaming Netflix over satellite internet. Or through your LTE hotspot. Tell us what the bill comes to.

You can get Netflix through the mail.

Bill comes to $17.00 a month.

Sanely affordable option.

[Slabasaurus]

You can get Netflix through the mail.

Bill comes to $17.00 a month.

Sanely affordable option.

It's too regressive of a concept there to be considered a sane option. Not to mention that would allow an ISP to have greater influence/control over the potential revenue streams of companies that provide media to end users... (in your example netflix would be losing the revenue gained by the streaming fees for that group of users).

Back on pg 1 you implied that google et al were the real big players in all this. I let it go but holy cow the misinformation in this thread is just astonishing so I'll comment on it now. Simply put: You should do just a LITTLE (not much required) research to see how it actually works.

ISPs>Google, netflix, amazon, etc etc. ISPs control it all, and in large part have revenue streams larger than the googles of the world. Comcast, for example, has had revenues BILLIONS of dollars more than google the past 3 years.

Also think I need to repost this here because... wow. Wow.

very simple explanation of net neturality

As far as my comment back on PG1 about y'all and the auto oppose Obamao deal... I am pretty sure that if Obamao proposed to fastrack a bill written by the NRA on how they would like gun laws to read... y'all would be up in arms about that too (get it? Arms? it's funny.)

[upnorth]

Satellite internet sucks for anything other than general internet browsing. If you need it for work any thing of that nature it is terrible. One step but still poor is the hotspot wireless solution from digital carriers like AT&T and Verizon.

[Uncle Bill]

As far as my comment back on PG1 about y'all and the auto oppose Obamao deal... I am pretty sure that if Obamao proposed to fastrack a bill written by the NRA on how they would like gun laws to read... y'all would be up in arms about that too (get it? Arms? it's funny.)

Uhhggg...

Let's recap.

Since 2006, Five seperate bills have been taken up in congress to pass some form of Net Neut.

(Net/neut wiki page for bill, source, author, results)

All failed. 5 bills, all failed, 5 bills all failed, Get it now. ALL FAILED.

Again I will ask.

(And, again proponents will dance around it)

Why would anyone want UNELECTED bureaucrats and LOBBYISTS writing the rules ??

[bobbymalone]

Can anyone that's against net neutrality give a reason why that doesn't involve Repubs good, Democrats bad?

[Uncle Bill]

Can anyone that's against net neutrality give a reason why that doesn't involve Repubs good, Democrats bad?

Que the music..

Psssttt...Seems even the FCC Democratic chairman is at odds with obama net/neut radicalism..

He must be on "auto oppose"..

[bobbymalone]

Psssttt...Seems even the FCC Democratic chairman is at odds with obama net/neut radicalism..

pssst.... I couldn't give two $#its about the politics.

Pretty sure you do.

[Uncle Bill]

pssst.... I couldn't give two $#its about the politics.

Pretty sure you do.

Don't go away mad, bobby...

[bobbymalone]

So you don't have a reason to be against net neutrality other than partisan politics?

Not surprised since from your original post it's clear you have no idea what your talking about.

[delcecchi]

Can anyone that's against net neutrality give a reason why that doesn't involve Repubs good, Democrats bad?

[upnorth]

I am not really anti net neutrality, but it would allow ISPs to offer ultra and I mean ultra fast connection for companies that are willing to pay for it. One of the biggest problem is an inadequate internet backbone to carry the data past from ISP to ISP. And from the looking I have done, the govt is the one who builds and maintains the backbone. We are talking 10/100+ gb bandwidth to carry this stuff. Take some pretty fat routers and other expensive infrastructure to carry that.

Right now net neutrality literally means all traffic travels the same path and gets the same priority. No favs.