RunRyder RC
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )    >    >> ] 808 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Net Neutrality
12-16-2017 03:10 PM  8 months agoPost 21
Mark Ryder

Administrator

Ann Arbor, Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Witch.Duk
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
Yes and you should pay for being a hog. The RR business has always had too. The market will take of business. This is not the same as the railroads either. There is a lot of dark fiber out there waiting for the right economics.

Mark Ryder

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 03:17 PM  8 months agoPost 22
fla heli boy

rrKey Veteran

cape coral, florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The internet never would have succeeded without net neutrality.
How did it survive and flourish BEFORE 2015??? Bottom line is it's not in ISP's interest to limit their own customers, as they will turn and find another ISP. Like I have done a few times. I cut the chord on my cable and am streaming only. Saved me $250 per month and when I did, I spent the extra $5 per month and ramped up to max bandwidth. Wow, the horror.
But I will say, the day after this was repealed, Netflix did raise their monthly fee. By a whole $0.30 per month. You may see some very small increases, with most of them being voluntary, but that's life.
And to compare this to utilities is just plain silly. You have to have water, sewer and electricity. My guess is very few people HAVE to have cable or the internet. But according to liberals, the world is now going to end.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 03:31 PM  8 months agoPost 23
rcmiket

rrVeteran

El Paso,Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Government does screw some things up. They also do some things well. The government did invent the internet.
Got a list?

Mike

"When Inverted down is up and up is expensive"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 03:43 PM  8 months agoPost 24
wjvail

rrKey Veteran

Meridian, Mississippi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

This is not the same as the railroads either.
I see parallels. In 1900 if you owned the railroads, you owned the track. And if you owned the track, you owned commerce. Right now I see a push to own the "track" of the internet and those that own the track would like to market it without oversight. Those that use the track don't see it the same way. At this moment I see this as a power struggle between Mark Bezos and Paul Allen (and a few others like them). I also believe this fight needs a referee. "When elephants fight, the grass suffers."

I'll keep saying it... I don't know enough to know who is right.

"Well, Nothing bad can happen now."

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 03:50 PM  8 months agoPost 25
Witch.Duk

rrNovice

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

rcmiket
Got a list?
1.) Protecting our freedoms.
2.) Giving away the land.
3.) Educating everybody.
4.) Helping us retire with dignity.
5.) Improving public health.

And I agree with the railroad analogy. There are several other examples throughout our history.

Res ipsa loquitur.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 04:18 PM  8 months agoPost 26
Mark Ryder

Administrator

Ann Arbor, Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

wjvail
I see parallels. In 1900 if you owned the railroads, you owned the track.
It's not physically the same. There are way more right of ways on the internet. An order of magnitude. The hook up at your house is the only choke point if at that. My (RR's) ISP has a boatload of bandwidth connection choices.

Mark Ryder

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 04:43 PM  8 months agoPost 27
pctomlin

rrVeteran

Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

A Little Truth About Net Neutrality?
An article about odumbo's typical screw up with his little king policies written by Lawrence J. Spiwak, the President of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies

The current iteration of the net-neutrality debate is not really about an “Open Internet” or free speech or even apple pie; it’s about whether government should be permitted to expand its power and encroach on private actors’ due process protections. At stake, in other words, is whether an administrative agency should be permitted to re-write the law — especially when it does so simply to fit a political agenda.

While some folks are busy screaming about the need for “Title II,” I’d wager most have no idea what that means. The FCC under President Obama sure as heck didn’t. As someone who has practiced telecommunications law for over 23 years, including a stint in the FCC’s Office of General Counsel, please let me provide a quick tutorial. Title II does not accomplish what Internet activists claim it does.

First, Title II — properly applied — means that Broadband Service Providers (“BSPs”) get to charge “edge” providers, such as Google and Netflix, a positive price for terminating their bits to broadband users. Let me repeat: Title II does not mean edge providers are exempt from paying a fee for transmission of their content. By statutory definition under Title II, a “telecommunications service” is a service sold “for a fee.” Moreover, these edge providers impose a direct cost on the network and, as such, the Fifth Amendment demands that BSPs be compensated appropriately. As such, Title II prohibits the FCC from imposing a “below cost” (i.e., “confiscatory”) rate of zero.

Second, Title II — properly applied — means that BSPs must file tariffs with the FCC. A tariff is a document establishing a government-set rate that publicly announces what prices will be charged for what services beforehand. The FCC has generally done away with tariffs because they don’t make sense in a competitive market. That is, the FCC has recognized that in a competitive marketplace, tariffs drive providers to charge similar prices, thus undercutting the very point of having companies compete on price. By contrast, according to the theory that held sway in Obama’s FCC — the case for using Title II to secure an Open Internet — all BSPs are “gatekeepers” and “terminating monopolies.” In other words, the commission doesn’t trust the market to ensure that rates are “just and reasonable.” Taking that argument at face value, this means that the FCC — by its very own logic — cannot eliminate tariffs in a non-
competitive market by the plain terms of the Communications Act. (This point was made explicit by now-Chairman Ajit Pai’s lengthy dissent to the 2015 Open Internet Order.)

Third, Title II — properly applied — specifically permits BSPs to engage in reasonable discrimination, provided that customers are not “similarly situated.” As such, Title II expressly prohibits the FCC from imposing a rule that would mandate blanket non-discrimination to all comers.

Unfortunately, the plain language of Title II — not to mention the 80 years of case law supporting it — proved inconvenient for the Obama administration. Its solution? To ignore the “vast majority of rules adopted under Title II,” selectively picking and choosing whatever provisions of Title II it found convenient to achieve a results-driven outcome. Pleased with its handiwork, the FCC proudly proclaimed that it rewrote the statute by successfully tailoring “Title II … for the 21stCentury.”

Given this abuse of power, we should applaud Chairman Pai for trying to return the rule of law at the FCC. Who knows? Perhaps after 12 long years of the net-neutrality debate we might finally have a rational discussion about how to protect an “Open Internet” in a way that is both legally sustainable and economically sound.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 05:21 PM  8 months agoPost 28
Witch.Duk

rrNovice

Indianapolis, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The hook up at your house is the only choke point if at that. My (RR's) ISP has a boatload of bandwidth connection choices.
The providers to your ISP are irrelevant. Whomever controls that last mile, controls your internet.

Res ipsa loquitur.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 05:37 PM  8 months agoPost 29
Mark Ryder

Administrator

Ann Arbor, Michigan

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Witch.Duk
Whomever controls that last mile, controls your internet.
Correct and that's where free market competition is needed most. My home's cable internet connection is/was capped by Comcast. If I want more I have to pay more. Sounds like a deal to me. Or cut the cord and use a cell or satellite connection.

Mark Ryder

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-16-2017 09:16 PM  8 months agoPost 30
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

First Mile
Thanks for the post PCTomlin.

As I read the post, Obama and the FCC tried to reinvent Title II. 80 years of experience (litigated law) was tossed and they replaced it.

The Republicans and others are trying to return to a prior status and use title II to settle disputes.

I do not see this as a last mile issue. More of a first mile. What fee will be charged to the website to transmit the information that the user has requested. I am Mr. big website and I can get a preferential rate. The users of free sites cannot afford high-speed transmission, so they get served up when and if the big boys are done.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
12-17-2017 12:30 PM  8 months agoPost 31
rcmiket

rrVeteran

El Paso,Texas

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

1.) Protecting our freedoms.
2.) Giving away the land.
3.) Educating everybody.
4.) Helping us retire with dignity.
5.) Improving public health.
Sorry I don't buy any of that.

They overspend on everything and than regulate the crap out of it.

Protecting our Freedoms? Really now the courts decide everything. Were ya been? The courts were there to interpret law not make it. If your speaking about the military until only recently is it being used to protect us but we need to rebuild it after 8 years of neglect.

No clue what giving away land is? They don't Give anything to anyone nor do they actually own any of it. We own it.

Educate everyone? Really? My local school taxes deal with that.

"Retire with dignity" what the hell is that?
Please don't tell me you talking about SSN. I paid more into it than I'll ever get out. Just another goverment run thing that ripe with fraud look at SSN disability growth over the last decade.

"Improving public health "? What with their many programs that most of us never will use or even need and are so ripe with corruption and fraud they don't serve the purpose they were designed for?

Yea the goverment screws up everything it touches.

Mike

"When Inverted down is up and up is expensive"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 2 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )    >    >> ] 808 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Net Neutrality
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 4  Topic Subscribe

Thursday, August 16 - 9:27 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online