FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@coliver Fortunately none of the comments made this week will be taken into account as a part of some odd rule.
-
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver Fortunately none of the comments made this week will be taken into account as a part of some odd rule.
It looks like he is doing classic deflection, embrace some derogatory or inflammatory arguments to invalidate the entire base of arguments while ignoring the overwhelming majority of good arguments, or as it is colloquially known "American Politics".
The fact that thousands of companies have come out on the pro-net neutrality side, and he is saying the "19 ISPs" are against it just speaks volumes...
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver Fortunately none of the comments made this week will be taken into account as a part of some odd rule.
It looks like he is doing classic deflection, embrace some derogatory or inflammatory arguments to invalidate the entire base of arguments while ignoring the overwhelming majority of good arguments, or as it is colloquially known "American Politics".
The fact that thousands of companies have come out on the pro-net neutrality side, and he is saying the "19 ISPs" are against it just speaks volumes...
Ajit Pai I assume you're speaking about. Yes he needs to be removed from office. He used to work Verizon where he handled matters of competition, regulation and business counseling.
If that isn't a conflict of interest I don't know what is. His past clearly makes him pro business, anti basic regulations.
-
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver Fortunately none of the comments made this week will be taken into account as a part of some odd rule.
It looks like he is doing classic deflection, embrace some derogatory or inflammatory arguments to invalidate the entire base of arguments while ignoring the overwhelming majority of good arguments, or as it is colloquially known "American Politics".
The fact that thousands of companies have come out on the pro-net neutrality side, and he is saying the "19 ISPs" are against it just speaks volumes...
Ajit Pai I assume you're speaking about. Yes he needs to be removed from office. He used to work Verizon where he handled matters of competition, regulation and business counseling.
If that isn't a conflict of interest I don't know what is. His past clearly makes him pro business, anti basic regulations.
His past makes it highly possible. But very few of us are tied to former jobs in that way. I used to work as a journalist (two different careers within that two different businesses) but am aware of no media bias, even though they were good jobs. I don't go around telling people to listen to the media.
Likely he's corrupt and his former job was the basis for his connections to kickbacks. Or he just hates America. Or both. But just because he worked at Verizon means little other than he knew where to look for kickbacks.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver Fortunately none of the comments made this week will be taken into account as a part of some odd rule.
It looks like he is doing classic deflection, embrace some derogatory or inflammatory arguments to invalidate the entire base of arguments while ignoring the overwhelming majority of good arguments, or as it is colloquially known "American Politics".
The fact that thousands of companies have come out on the pro-net neutrality side, and he is saying the "19 ISPs" are against it just speaks volumes...
Ajit Pai I assume you're speaking about. Yes he needs to be removed from office. He used to work Verizon where he handled matters of competition, regulation and business counseling.
If that isn't a conflict of interest I don't know what is. His past clearly makes him pro business, anti basic regulations.
His past makes it highly possible. But very few of us are tied to former jobs in that way. I used to work as a journalist (two different careers within that two different businesses) but am aware of no media bias, even though they were good jobs. I don't go around telling people to listen to the media.
Likely he's corrupt and his former job was the basis for his connections to kickbacks. Or he just hates America. Or both. But just because he worked at Verizon means little other than he knew where to look for kickbacks.
I agree - Kickbacks, etc seem a much more likely reason for his position. Corruption, pure and simple.
-
Sadly - I have a friend who is anti-net neutrality. He believes that the carriers should be able to restrict their lines any way they want.
Ordinarily the capitalist in me would make me agree with him, but I know the corrupt, non-capitalist environment that they operate in (monopoly), which is why I think ISPs should be regulated like common carriers.
In fact I'd go further and push that ISPs shouldn't be part of any other business. If you're and ISP, that's all you should be, a pure and simple company that just provides access to the internet. Of course I know that won't fly for so many reasons, so I'll just dump this here.
Also, municipalities should not be able to sell exclusive rights to single or even dual carriers to the easements.
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Sadly - I have a friend who is anti-net neutrality. He believes that the carriers should be able to restrict their lines any way they want.
Ah for the good old 1960s when we could just call these people commies and have them taken away for their anti-American activities
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Ordinarily the capitalist in me would make me agree with him,
Capitalism demands a fair market. Monopolies are privatization of planned economies. So it's actually the communist in you that would agree with him.
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
In fact I'd go further and push that ISPs shouldn't be part of any other business. If you're and ISP, that's all you should be, a pure and simple company that just provides access to the internet. Of course I know that won't fly for so many reasons, so I'll just dump this here.
Also, municipalities should not be able to sell exclusive rights to single or even dual carriers to the easements.
Now THAT is the capitalist talking.
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, municipalities should not be able to sell exclusive rights to single or even dual carriers to the easements.
This I agree with mostly, unless the municipality is offering free internet as a part of the taxes.
It's where there is no community choice, that businesses like Frontier, Time Warner (Spectrum) etc are entrenched and make these wild claims about leaving etc, that the municipality folds and provides these insane concessions.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Ordinarily the capitalist in me would make me agree with him,
Capitalism demands a fair market. Monopolies are privatization of planned economies. So it's actually the communist in you that would agree with him.
What? No, the part that agrees only agrees IF we have a fair market, but the ISP market space is anything but fair, so I don't agree with him at all.
The part I agree with, again only given a fair market, is it's my service, I've paid to put it in place, I should be able to put what I want, and only what I want on it... but again, we don't live in a fair market, so this doesn't apply.
-
@Dashrender technically a fair market can be a market of 1. . .
-
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender technically a fair market can be a market of 1. . .
It's not how many are in the market, but how many can be in the market.
-
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, municipalities should not be able to sell exclusive rights to single or even dual carriers to the easements.
This I agree with mostly, unless the municipality is offering free internet as a part of the taxes.
It's where there is no community choice, that businesses like Frontier, Time Warner (Spectrum) etc are entrenched and make these wild claims about leaving etc, that the municipality folds and provides these insane concessions.
I'm not really for a municipality providing access either. Infrastructure for access, sure, but actual internet access - I'm borderline. If the city does the right thing and constantly renegotiates it's contracts to get good rates for the municipality, then maybe. But the ISPs could have a junction to the municipalities network and then residents could pick any provider they wanted... all the while the city ensuring it's not the bottle neck (taxes) would allow actual competition.
But managing a network like that might just not be doable.I'm I'm not a huge fan of the city being the ISP because I'm against government having those records (not that they don't pay the ISPs for them now).
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender technically a fair market can be a market of 1. . .
It's not how many are in the market, but how many can be in the market.
Exactly. If you invent something, the market is fair as long as you're the only player. The instant there's a second player, if they are somehow prevented from coming into the market, it's no longer fair.
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, municipalities should not be able to sell exclusive rights to single or even dual carriers to the easements.
This I agree with mostly, unless the municipality is offering free internet as a part of the taxes.
It's where there is no community choice, that businesses like Frontier, Time Warner (Spectrum) etc are entrenched and make these wild claims about leaving etc, that the municipality folds and provides these insane concessions.
I'm not really for a municipality providing access either. Infrastructure for access, sure, but actual internet access - I'm borderline. If the city does the right thing and constantly renegotiates it's contracts to get good rates for the municipality, then maybe. But the ISPs could have a junction to the municipalities network and then residents could pick any provider they wanted... all the while the city ensuring it's not the bottle neck (taxes) would allow actual competition.
But managing a network like that might just not be doable.I'm I'm not a huge fan of the city being the ISP because I'm against government having those records (not that they don't pay the ISPs for them now).
Government will have the records either way. I prefer pushing the records into government hands because that is what pushes for regulation. Having governments only have records unofficially, or sometimes, encourages people to ignore putting watchdogs on the government.
-
@Dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@DustinB3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@Dashrender technically a fair market can be a market of 1. . .
It's not how many are in the market, but how many can be in the market.
Exactly. If you invent something, the market is fair as long as you're the only player. The instant there's a second player, if they are somehow prevented from coming into the market, it's no longer fair.
Right.
-
Pai doesn't like the open internet... calls for further open internet policies.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Pai doesn't like .....
Freedom of speech, America, etc.
-
Isn't public corruption fun? At least they tried to hide it in the past.
