Appeals Court Hands Obama Administration Major Win In Net Neutrality Case

[Zyphlin]

This is not a win for the consumer. When the free market loses the consumer loses. The cable companies own the lines, they own the servers, they should be able to offer services in whatever manner they choose. If what the consumer is supposedly demanding, all traffic to be treated the same, then companies will change their products to meet the demands. We see that with the change in plans from by the byte to monthly. We see that with increased speeds for the same price. We see that with expanded services like streaming video and recording boxes. The fact that the cable companies havent changed the product is proof that the consumer is not demanding the change.

No, we are seeing that the consumer has little true options if they want change. Most people, IF lucky, have two options...Cable or Satellite. Others, if VERY lucky, may have a 3rd if Verizon's FIOS is available. But many people only have one legitimate option. Their only way to "demand change" at that point would be to completely go without television. That's not a "free market". Anymore than having one gas station in town charging 100x what it costs them to buy the gasoline and saying "Well, people are still paying it to fill up. And if they want to demand change they can just stop driving their cars"

Every alternative that is coming up is generally technical in nature and thus attracts a more niche market, because it's impossible for an actual competitor to enter into the traditional market against these folks.

 

[Aberration]

There's never really been a "free market" in telecommunications.
Most localities have granted monopolies and until we develop better ota internet services, net neutrality is a good idea.

I never said there HAD been a free market. Just because we don't have a free market doesn't mean free market principles wont work.

Its interesting that government created the problem by establishing monopolies, and then when the natural problems of monopolies is realized, we don't try to tear down the monopoly, but we double down and further insulate that monopoly from competition.

The free market is specifically intended to combat the monopolies that central governments create.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I never said there HAD been a free market. Just because we don't have a free market doesn't mean free market principles wont work.

Its interesting that government created the problem by establishing monopolies, and then when the natural problems of monopolies is realized, we don't try to tear down the monopoly, but we double down and further insulate that monopoly from competition.

The free market is specifically intended to combat the monopolies that central governments create.

The current political will to "fix" things like that won't come.
We'll have to wait until an "uber" like situation develops, where technology just grows up out of that limitation.

 

[Aberration]

No, we are seeing that the consumer has little true options if they want change. Most people, IF lucky, have two options...Cable or Satellite. Others, if VERY lucky, may have a 3rd if Verizon's FIOS is available. But many people only have one legitimate option. Their only way to "demand change" at that point would be to completely go without television. That's not a "free market". Anymore than having one gas station in town charging 100x what it costs them to buy the gasoline and saying "Well, people are still paying it to fill up. And if they want to demand change they can just stop driving their cars"

Every alternative that is coming up is generally technical in nature and thus attracts a more niche market, because it's impossible for an actual competitor to enter into the traditional market against these folks.

Satellite though is a perfect example of the market trying to find a solution to the monopoly. Sure its not ideal, but they still compete with each other. And consumers still drive demand for services. There is simply nothing more democratic than the free market. Even with limited competition these companies fight tooth and nail to get every dollar.

If there was a gas station charging 100x the cost, people would find an alternative. Someone would go buy gas in another town, truck it back and sell if for 99x. The market will pay what the market will bear. It doesn't matter how much people try to command it, it still never changes that simple fact.

 

[Aberration]

The current political will to "fix" things like that won't come.
We'll have to wait until an "uber" like situation develops, where technology just grows up out of that limitation.

No politician is EVER going to have the will to get rid of their cash cow. Why would one expect them to?

Or we could recognize that we have more options that sitting around and we could start efforts to tear down the monopolies that have been set up. They violate the law after all. I don't see why the government should not be subject to the same anti-monopoly laws everyone else is. Any city, town, State, should lose federal funding until they comply.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

No politician is EVER going to have the will to get rid of their cash cow. Why would one expect them to?

Or we could recognize that we have more options that sitting around and we could start efforts to tear down the monopolies that have been set up. They violate the law after all. I don't see why the government should not be subject to the same anti-monopoly laws everyone else is.

It's realpolitik, it's not going to happen.
We just have to wait for technology to get around it.

It sucks, but that's the most likely reality we're stuck with.

 

[Aberration]

It's realpolitik, it's not going to happen.
We just have to wait for technology to get around it.

It sucks, but that's the most likely reality we're stuck with.

You are free to accept defeat at your leisure.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You are free to accept defeat at your leisure.

I don't live in an illusion.
Defeat is part of life though, accepting it is good for you.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Actually, I did. I said it was because it was simply an op-ed piece full of he said/she said comments. I then specifically quoted examples from your link. The article reads more like a gossip piece than a news piece. "Obama said" is not a reality proof point. ( As a reminder, Obama also said we could keep out doctors, health care cost would go down, etc. )

An op-ed piece? What in the **** are you talking about? Its in no way an opinion piece. Its literally an explanation of what net neutrality is, what the FCC and Obama's proposals are, and why some in the GOP are against it.

 

[Aberration]

I don't live in an illusion.
Defeat is part of life though, accepting it is good for you.

I am not saying you live in an illusion. If you want to just wait for some technology to save you, well thats your choice. I personally think that technology is advancing at a far quicker pace than government can keep up and that is a very good thing. Regardless, I don't see any reason to sit by and wait. This President is almost gone. So are a lot of his policies. While defeat is part of life, I don't believe that accepting it is.

 

[natsb]

An op-ed piece? What in the **** are you talking about? Its in no way an opinion piece. Its literally an explanation of what net neutrality is, what the FCC and Obama's proposals are, and why some in the GOP are against it.

Sigh.... You are clearly an articulate and intelligent person. If only your confirmation bias were not so strong, we could move this along. Please, please, read the article again and specifically look for the things I mentioned instead of blocking them out.

The article is absolutely an op-ed piece. Nowhere does the author actually give an analysis of he saw in the rules. The only thing the author is doing is relaying stuff heard or read from third parties about what those people think the rules say.

Here are two cases:

Case A: Obama said the new rules will provide free and open Internet. Therefore, the new rules will provide free and open Internet.

Case B: Obama said the new rules will provide free and open Internet. Although the opening statement of the new rules proclaim the same, I found in later sections that the FCC is actually given authority over access and content.

I hope you see the difference. One of the cases is just opinion, the other case shows an author that actually investigated the rules and provided real content. If you go back and give the article an honest read, somehow with the bias turned off, I am certain it will be clear which case the article falls under.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I am not saying you live in an illusion. If you want to just wait for some technology to save you, well thats your choice. I personally think that technology is advancing at a far quicker pace than government can keep up and that is a very good thing. Regardless, I don't see any reason to sit by and wait. This President is almost gone. So are a lot of his policies. While defeat is part of life, I don't believe that accepting it is.

It's a natural progression in my eyes.
Government can't put the cat back in the bag, they eventually have to cede, because they can't control technology.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Sigh.... You are clearly an articulate and intelligent person. If only your confirmation bias were not so strong, we could move this along. Please, please, read the article again and specifically look for the things I mentioned instead of blocking them out.

The article is absolutely an op-ed piece. Nowhere does the author actually give an analysis of he saw in the rules. The only thing the author is doing is relaying stuff heard or read from third parties about what those people think the rules say.

Here are two cases:

Case A: Obama said the new rules will provide free and open Internet. Therefore, the new rules will provide free and open Internet.

Case B: Obama said the new rules will provide free and open Internet. Although the opening statement of the new rules proclaim the same, I found in later sections that the FCC is actually given authority over access and content.

I hope you see the difference. One of the cases is just opinion, the other case shows an author that actually investigated the rules and provided real content. If you go back and give the article an honest read, somehow with the bias turned off, I am certain it will be clear which case the article falls under.

:doh Wait, what? That does not make it an op-ed.. Reporting on what a politician says does not make it an op-ed.
1.)The OP and the polififact article does not say that Obama said that. I actually said that in the OP sharing my opinion.
2.)Let me give an example of the Politifact reporting on what Obama says, but look what they state after sharing his quote: "That’s where Obama’s proposal comes in. In his announcement, Obama said the Federal Communications Commission should "reclassify" Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, meaning they would be treated as public utilities, like phone service -- and they would be subject to more regulation. Currently, the Internet is classified as an "information service," which greatly limits how much the FCC can regulate it."
Politifact explains what reclassifying it under Title II of the Telecommunications Act means.

The politifact also explains what the idea of net neutrality is as well, "What is net neutrality? It’s the idea that Internet service providers (like Comcast and Verizon) should treat all web content equally. Net neutrality supporters think Internet service should operate like electricity. Consumers pay a fee to an Internet service provider, and they get equal access to the whole Internet -- every website, big and small -- without any interference from the service providers."

 

[Deuce]

I never said there HAD been a free market. Just because we don't have a free market doesn't mean free market principles wont work.

Its interesting that government created the problem by establishing monopolies, and then when the natural problems of monopolies is realized, we don't try to tear down the monopoly, but we double down and further insulate that monopoly from competition.

The free market is specifically intended to combat the monopolies that central governments create.

No, other factors cause the free market to not work with last-mile internet delivery.

 

[Aberration]

No, other factors cause the free market to not work with last-mile internet delivery.

Like?

 

[Deuce]

Like?

Similar problems to water and power infrastructure:

-Massive, expensive undertakings that involve digging up both public streets and sometimes private property.
-Fundamental technical requirements of cooperation. (neither electricity nor data can "compete" on the same lines, and must be tied together properly or the whole system doesn't work)
-Lack of real competition, largely a result of the above creating high barriers to entry
-Basic communication and education service required to effectively participate in a modern economy, making what little choice is available not much of a choice at all
-Fundamental technical problems with alternative delivery methods: (solar panels are theoretically an alternative to the local power grid but not a meaningful one, wireless/satellite internet is a less-effective and more-limited option)

 

[joG]

And we know how balanced that guy was.