Obama wants to make the internet a utility

Status
Not open for further replies.

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
FCC I'm pretty sure. It's actually going to benefit this country entirely. Data prices will come down as competition for services will arise. No more will Comcast, or TW be able to corner the market, or the other conglomerates. We'll start to see faster speeds (again, for cheaper prices) and it will allow for a stronger protection of the free and Open Web. Don't worry about the possible spying that could occur, the NSA spying capabilities are better and stronger than any of your ISPs.
Was this supposed to be in blue?

Faster speeds...........lower prices..............I can tell you never worked in that industry, or had any dealings with the FCC.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
Originally Posted by TheWeek
Susan Crawford argues that "huge telecommunication companies" such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T have "divided up markets and put themselves in a position where they're subject to no competition."

How? The 1996 Telecommunications Act — which was meant to foster competition — allowed cable companies and telecoms companies to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly, allowing them to charge customers higher and higher prices without the kind of investment in internet infrastructure, especially in next-generation fiber optic connections, that is ongoing in other countries. Fiber optic connections offer a particularly compelling example. While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010 — citing high costs — just as other countries were getting to work.
Ironically, Verizon's "high costs" are why their penetration is so low, in the areas it operates without competition. Unless you call the one cable company that is allowed to operate competition. And they scratch their heads as to why. (Don't tell me otherwise.............I know this to be true.)

Verizon and AT&T are so screwed up, loaded with tons of inefficient bureaucracy and idiotic, archaic ways of doing things.................well, the rest of what I would like to say would violate the terms of posting here.

Right...........just what we need................let Uncle Sugar give them even more protection, from competition, in return for not gouging "data hogs". They both have over a century of screwing folks over, with high costs, and no innovations. Trust me........this will be much worse than what we now have.

Unless you are poor. It will be your human right, to have affordable high-speed access. Paid for by the rest of us. But the new high-speed won't be the old high-speed. Trust me.

And to think some of you fellow libertarians are falling for this high-tech three-card Monty. I can't believe it. Gubbament will never give you more liberty. They are only programmed to take it away. Under the guise of something you need and simply must have. It will be much better, and cheaper, than what you have now.

Just like health care. Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
Please don't take offense to this, as I am using your as an example of the greater issue at large. Having people who fundamentally do not understand technology being tasked with regulating it
You mean the same morons who said "If you like your health care, you can keep your healthcare"? Lawyers................power-hungry bureaucrats..............bought and paid for by lobbyists. Yes, let's give them more decision-making powers. They are bona fide experts on technology. Yessiree, Bob!

and shaping the path of it moving forward is the only reason for hope I have that eventually the young will become motivated enough to stop being so apathetic. In the ongoing net neutrality debate I continue to see a gap between those who understand technology, and those who don't, segregated primarily based upon the basis of age. There are some old timers who work in the industry and have been part of it from the outset
Like me?

who understand, but for the most part, attempting to explain the internet to an older generation is like trying to sell binoculars to a cyclops. Fundamentally people who actually have grown up with a constantly connected world get why its bad. Those who haven't, are finding themselves parroting the anti-government, anti-regulation rhetoric thrown up by the politicians bought and paid for by the telecom lobby. The surest way to get the greatest number of people on board, who are likely to never be affected, is to shout "Obama likes it!"
Well, that would be true if, and only if, this were really about "net neutrality'. It isn't. They want to say it is, but it isn't.

(Just like healthcare reform was about healthcare reform, and making it more affordable. And not redistribution of wealth, and making healthcare more unaffordable. Which is the case.)

If your (the royal your) objection is purely based off the principle that nothing the government touches will ever turn out for the better, this whole argument is moot anyways.
Seriously?

I can legitimately respect your position, as the government has given many many examples of why this is a sound belief. However I ask that you at least attempt to argue on that point, not some of the crazy crap that has been thrown out there by Cruz, Fox, et al. There really is a diminishing window for actual discourse in this country. Every issue is taken to the extremes with both sides shouting at each other.
Ah, but since I have spent all of my adult life in and around the telecom industry, my knowledge of how screwed up giving more control to the gubbament, with a token crumb thrown at AT&T and Verizon, will be is flawed because I may have voted for Ted Cruz.

I didn't. And I don't watch Fox. Next straw man.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
As to the unintended consequences, frankly I have no idea. I would like to believe after all the attention that it got (greatest response to pending decision by FCC ever) the public can at least attempt to have a say in what happens instead of allowing for back room deals and lawyers decide how the internet works.
You have just answered your own question. The fix is in. The fix is always in. The FCC is filled with a bunch of political hacks, who see "social justice" as their raison d'etre. We already know about AT&T and Verizon.

HilaryCare got the deep 6, because they did it in the open, and left the evil insurance companies out of the loop. (Or "fix", if you prefer.) They learned their lessons well. Despite claims of transparency, there will be no transparency. Despite claims of "everything will be much better, just you wait and see.................but we can't tell how wonderful it will be until after it is all said and done", it will be none of those things. Uncle Sugar and the evil telecom giants will come to some sleazy back-room deal (that is how fascism really works........an evil alliance of gubbament and big bidnis), and you will have your so-called "net neutrality". In exchange for less liberty.

You can believe something else, if you want to. That is your right. I hope you do not mind being wrong. Actually, I would hope you would use the due diligence you want "opponents" to use, and realize the fix is already in. This is all window dressing, while they haggle the evil fine print, where no one can see them.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
No more reason than I have to believe that corporations with a veritable monopoly, who have already proven they have no interest in doing anything more than squeezing content creators and consumers, won't continue to do more of the same. I am just a realist. Personally I believe that the mega corporations who currently cover vast swaths of the country as the only provider should be broken up.
Uh....we already did that! 30 years ago (more or less.) Yes, I was there. We did it.

Then it reverted back to AT&T and Verizon. Long story. Corporate greed, mismanagement, and slimeballs in gubbament and industry let it go back to what it was. Win-win for the elements of fascism.


I am actually surprised that you advocated for much of the same. But as a realist I know that DC is bought and paid for by the lobbyists.
Yes, yes, yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no way it will happen. The FCC is probably the last option.
No, they are the worst option.

You mentioned in a previous post for us to mention one instance of where the FCC put a gun to someone's head.

They have. Yes, I was there! The gubbament agency that gave us a mandate, to bring competition to the telecom industry, and fought with us, against AT&T, actually tried to pull the plug on us one day. (At the behest of...........wait for it.................AT&T!) They decided "we" went too far, and instead of just slowing us down, they tried to pull the plug on everything we were doing. Forever.

If they prevailed..................well, I can assure you a lot of things you take for granted would have taken decades longer to happen, and would have cost a lot more.

You weren't there: I was. You are just going to have to trust me on this one. The FCC is no more your friend than AT&T or Verizon.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
Did I mis-interpret your statement? You said it would be nice to have high speed internet but its a high dollar affair for you.

So exactly how would government regulation make it cheaper for you?

I'm still paying for rural line fees and access fees 28 years later, which have now become free cell phones for low income recipients. Once the government starts taxing it, it won't stop.
There is a way around that: switch to VoIP. It avoids the nefarious "subscriber access fee".

But, you are right. What was once a subsidy for rural service became O'bama phones. Blame AlGor for a lot of that. Fascist.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
So, the infrastructure has remained substantially unchanged since the inception of the Internet?
Yes. AT&T and Verizon are trying to fix the "last mile" problem. In different ways, though. Mainly to get rid of all the corroded copper in the ground.

Their "fix" won't have the consumer in mind. It never does.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
For the most part yes. Companies have an issue with trying to push more and more data over cables that can't support it. Coax and twisted pair have been in the ground at most houses that can get phone or cable for some time. ISPs will lay new cable to the neighborhood, often fiber, then use the existing cabling to cover that last mile.

Technologies such as DSL variants were able to make use of the phone wiring through digital and the cable companies have managed to cram more data down coax.

That isn't to say that the parts getting the signal to your neighborhood or general area haven't changed, just that that last mile has remained relatively stagnant.
As Mrs. Tweedy would say: "Finally, something we can agree upon."

You finally got to the crux of the problem: ancient infrastructure, for the "last mile". It costs money to fix it, and guess who they want to fund it..............

Yes, you already know who. "Hello, uh, Netflix................we have a problem, and it is fixin' to be your problem."

Follow the money. You will find the answer. They need it, and don't want to spend theirs. They want to spend some other schmuck's money.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
I would argue that correlation doesn't imply causation. Many of the things you described didn't necessarily come out of AT&T by themselves,
Nothing came out of AT&T.

the internet for example, was either Al Gore or DARPA, neither of which worked for AT&T.
AlGor had nothing to do with ARPA net. He likes to say he did, but..............

Technically, the first internet prototype message was sent in the 60's, which was before AT&T had been broken up, during the time of regulation as common carrier, much of which did go away during the breakup as you pointed out.

And before AlGor.


Speaking of the breakup, I could just as easily try and say that it was the breakup of the AT&T into the baby bells, but not deregulation that created innovation, because many of the things you listed happened after the breakup but still took advantage of the common carrier status.
Uh, sort of. The folks who brought about deregulation were the ones pushing innovation. AT&T and the Baby Bells were still operating in monopoly mode. With their head up their.................

I would definitely be willing to concede that the regulation helped to create the AT&T monopoly. But won't you at least give a little and admit that since the breakup transferred control of the landlines that were going to everyones house to the smaller Bells, the companies who couldn't compete before were now able to make use of the common carrier rules to begin offering competing services to AT&T long distance?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was the smaller common carriers who started offering all those services. AT&T had to react to market forces.

The breakup forced AT&T into being solely a long distance provider, opening up the space for MCI and Sprint to begin competing since AT&T didn't control both the lines and the service.
You have it backwards, my friend. Who do you think forced the break-up? Both were already operating. (MCI since 1972. I know that for a fact. Sprint was still a dumb idea someone had at Southern Pacific Railroad, who thought it would be a good idea to throw some common-carrier traffic on the SPR microwave backbone. And reward all their cronies with a job in the new "communication company". Which was known as SPCommunications. How it ever survived and became Sprint still baffles me. They treated their customers and employees like cattle on a rail car. Trust me, once again.)

Isn't competition what really drives innovation?
Yes...........says the guy who worked on a lot of those innovations. None of which came from Bell Labs.

I don't think we are going to get another shakeup like the AT&T breakup. In fact we are seeing the companies that exist currently attempting to consolidate. AT&T has slowly been buying back up all the competitors(Cingular, DirectTV) and Comcast is doing the same with the TWC merger.
BINGO!

...............snip..........

I really don't think that regulation as a carrier will kill all of the innovation. It will allow for the existing infrastructure to be utilized, for a fair market price, so that other carriers/networks don't have to solve the last mile problem. This may also reduce the incentive for companies to tie up local municipalities, who wish through their own initiative to build out their own network, as those same networks would be available to AT&T, Comcast, et al. Just imagine, your town holds a vote to issue bonds to build out a fiber to the home network for your town. Instead of AT&T tying it up in court, they salivate because now they don't have to build out or maintain that infrastructure, but the town is now required through regulation as a common carrier to provide access to that infrastructure to any company that wishes to offer services. Now AT&T, Comcast, DirectTV, TWC, GoogleFiber, can all use that common pipe to provide services, as well as compete for your business on a level playing field.
Uh, yeah............whatever. Great idea: let them share, so they have a greater stranglehold on things. Then it will be Google, et al, to fight them, for innovations. AT&T could care less about innovation. They only innovate if they really have to. It takes too long, with too many committees and bureaucratic nonsense to overcome to get anything done at that place. Their corporate culture is still that of a monopoly.

What am I missing here?
40 years of experience fighting AT&T. It isn't anything to be envious of.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,623
950
123
43
Huntsville, AL
So I will admit, I wasn't there, and your perspective is definitely appreciated.

However what you have said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is essentially that AT&T is the devil, the FCC does exactly what AT&T always wants, so leave it all alone because there is no way the FCC will do anything to benefit the consumer. Never mind the temper tantrum AT&T threw when the possibility of being classified as Title II was brought up earlier in the week.

Fine, as I've already said, I've been convinced. Abolish the FCC, drive AT&T and Verizon trucks up to Ft. Knox and just give them all the money and cut out the middleman.
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
So I will admit, I wasn't there, and your perspective is definitely appreciated.

However what you have said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is essentially that AT&T is the devil,
Pretty much. Too much bureaucracy to ever innovate........still thinks it has a monopoly. GTE, excuse me, Verizon, is just as bad.


the FCC does exactly what AT&T always wants,
No, they used to be a force for competition, albeit with a muddled idea what competition really was. Now, they are just a bunch of political hacks, at the behest of whatever whatever the latest "social justice" cause du jour is.

Remember how they took both the low- and high-band VHF channels away? In order to bring free broadband, to everyone. (And for real cheap!) That idea has seemed to have fallen in a crack. They have already given the high-band VHF channels back to some TV stations. Haven't talked to anyone involved in that, for at least a year, but that whole idea is a mess. Gubbament being gubbament. Although someone seemed to get gubbament money in the deal. (Word is a demoncract supporter runs the recipient.)

so leave it all alone because there is no way the FCC will do anything to benefit the consumer. Never mind the temper tantrum AT&T threw when the possibility of being classified as Title II was brought up earlier in the week.
They won't leave it alone, because the FCC wants supreme power over the 'Net, to promote "social justice". AT&T will throw a tantrum, and will get some regulatory concession, which will have the end effect of giving them more monopoly, so they will shut up and go away.

It will be promoted as "Net Neutrality". But it will be just another bait-and-switch gubbament power grab. Both sides will find a way to satisfy each other, to the detriment of the consumer, and true freedom of the 'Net.

Fine, as I've already said, I've been convinced. Abolish the FCC, drive AT&T and Verizon trucks up to Ft. Knox and just give them all the money and cut out the middleman.
They won't abolish the FCC. AT&T, Verizon, and maybe 2 cable companies will eventually control everything. We will all get screwed: from the regulatory end and the provider end. Prices will go up. You will have less choices. And Uncle Sugar will end up taxing the daylights out of e-commerce (because too many small fish do it), to finance what their next social justice mission is. (Think rural telephone service which became O'Dumbo phones.)
 

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
9,748
802
128
Gurley, Al
Selling binoculars to a cyclops! LMAO. I gonna start using that instead of refrigerators to an Eskimo! :)

The US has half the broadband speed at twice the price as the rest of the developed world. Onward Net Neutrality.
 

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,341
32
58
Shiner, TX
They won't abolish the FCC. AT&T, Verizon, and maybe 2 cable companies will eventually control everything. We will all get screwed: from the regulatory end and the provider end. Prices will go up. You will have less choices. And Uncle Sugar will end up taxing the daylights out of e-commerce (because too many small fish do it), to finance what their next social justice mission is. (Think rural telephone service which became O'Dumbo phones.)
Don't they already control everything? (debated whether or not to put that in blue font)
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,389
493
93
Allen, Texas
The US has half the broadband speed at twice the price as the rest of the developed world. Onward Net Neutrality.
Lemme guess................you probably think hanging wi-fi access points, on every utility pole (operating in the old low-band VHF frequencies), will lower prices and speed things up?

All it will do is line the pockets of an O'Dumbo donor. Paid for by.................us! Yes, what a great idea.

Yes, America is such a crappy place.................."healthcare" and "broadband" are so expensive that no one wants to come here. Why would anyone want to?

(Why is it that all you libs always have these "facts" at your disposal? Yesterday, I heard one of your ilk ramble on about how bad our infant mortality rates are. Spoken with conviction. Too bad their facts are bravo sierra.)
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,469
3,318
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
Hey cuda.................how about

you................try to ..............respond

in................ a ...............way
that isn't.........................so broken up










and...............hard to follow
 

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
9,748
802
128
Gurley, Al
Lemme guess................you probably think hanging wi-fi access points, on every utility pole (operating in the old low-band VHF frequencies), will lower prices and speed things up?

All it will do is line the pockets of an O'Dumbo donor. Paid for by.................us! Yes, what a great idea.

Yes, America is such a crappy place.................."healthcare" and "broadband" are so expensive that no one wants to come here. Why would anyone want to?

(Why is it that all you libs always have these "facts" at your disposal? Yesterday, I heard one of your ilk ramble on about how bad our infant mortality rates are. Spoken with conviction. Too bad their facts are bravo sierra.)
Me and a buncha Maysville Boys are gonna pay you a visit.:) Be bringing axe handles. What is an ilk anyway? Pretty sure I ain't one! BTW our infant mortality rates aren't good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Wear UA Masks!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.