Net neutrality


#1

Since Ben set this area up, I think he wanted a little controversy. Just figured I’d throw out a recent topic that Hollywood seems to be pretty preachy about… soapbox: engaged.

How on earth do these political topics get framed as they are? Net neutrality is the latest example. Last week I heard co-workers lamenting how their cable speeds were going to be “throttled.” What??? That’s not what Net Neutrality (NN) is about. Going back a few years, there were multiple bills for NN and none of them got enough support to pass. IIRC, most of the conversation for why NN was needed centered on ensuring “balanced” political discussion. Since President Obama couldn’t get it through congress, he encouraged the FCC to reclassify the internet. They did this in 2015. This allowed the FCC to regulate everything said and done (content and delivery) on the internet. This set table for further politicization of something else (as if the courts, IRS and DOJ were not enough). The NN repeal doesn’t give any new powers to “throttle” that didn’t exist prior to 2015.

IMHO, NN was an unconstitutional power grab that was done because it could not be passed through proper legal channels (the legislative branch). It allowed governmental control over something that was doing quite well without that control. It’s repeal had nothing to do with what was being discussed as its potential repeal came into focus (throttling). I still happen to think it is a fact that Free Market Capitalism has resulted in the most prosperous nation in the history of ever. This in turn has allowed the US to grow, support, protect and resuscitate nations all over the earth. The repeal of NN was a move towards Free Market Capitalism, so it seems a good move to me. I say to the US government… keep your hands off the internet!

Flame on!


#2

This anchor gets owned by former FCC chairman Robert McDowell, and he can’t hardly handle it: http://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/former-fcc-commissioner-defends-net-neutrality-repeal-1116899907726


#3

I couldn’t agree more, Mike. Seems odd to me to hear folks talk about wanting to protect free speech online by giving the power to regulate the internet to the entity that fines people for saying naughty words on TV.


#4

I was under the impression that President Obama created a Boogie Man under our bed that did not exist in making this an issue. So for whatever reason it was made a political issue.


#5

I can get a pretty good idea of how I should feel about a topic when I observe how certain groups react to it. Watch the interview above if you get a chance. The anchor claims the sky is falling and the guest simply states the law that is already and was already on the books before señor Obama came along.


#6

My understanding was that it was so the left wing could get a better foot hold in the media. (Equal time for all points of view; Insert big raspberry here). Remember the disastrous Air America? I don’t pay nearly as much attention to politics as I used to. It gets me too stirred up.


#7

Dang guys… I wanted arguments :grin:

I suspect this is the same video Ben linked, but MSNBC’s website did not play well with my system. Good find Ben!


#8

Just my opinion, but…It’s not so much about the .net…far more about the current administrations need to negate the former admin as much as they can…just another little step in that direction…has little to do with what’s “best” or any rational decision making.


#9

This is the one…makes the ol’ blood pressure go to 250BPM or so :slight_smile:


#10

Thanks Dave! Now we got an argument :smiley:


#11

I much prefer “discussion” …I’'ll leave “arguments” to those on the fringes.


#12

Amen to that.


#13

You may be right, but I think in this case, removing the Obama era control over the internet is a good thing. As with all things political, you have to follow the money. Who pays and who benefits?

In this case, enormous companies putting loads of data on the internet (Google, Netflix, Yahoo, etc) gain because the FCC ruling that was just removed prevented ISPs from charging them to help pay for supporting all of their data.

As an IT consultant, I can tell you that if one of my networks was suddenly brought to its knees by an outside source, I’d want to throttle data from that source. The FCC ruling basically said I couldn’t throttle, and I couldn’t charge the entities responsible, which means I either have to eat the cost to upgrade the equipment, or I have to charge my customers more whether they want that extra data or not.


#14

_Government never does a good job with the public sector _ The less control the better . Go back to the way it was let the people dictate cost and speed . Prohibition is an example of government failure.


#15

Very well explained. I hate it if there was extra cost but its fair.


#16

Wow, that is a very interesting exchange and a really good example of why the public distrusts media outlets like MSNBC and CNN. The anchor “wants a discussion” but rejects any discussion that doesn’t conform to his point of view. BTW Ali Velshi is demonstrating well-used bullying tactic of leftist fascist politicos.


#17

Bullying, one sided interviews, and stacked “discussion” panels became popular after the move by many companies to close down News departments and put the under the admin of entertainment…this happened pretty much at all outlets regardless of “leaning”.

On TV we might see a more of the Left leaning unfairness, but on radio the radical Right has been pounding away heavily for years with the same tactics as well as “talk radio”.with their own brand of one-sided,often misleading viciousness.

People have always editorialised on media, but in recent years it has become more of a name-calling hate fest filled mostly with extreme views meant to get folks riled up so they will keep consuming the banter. Radio, by the way, is still by far the front runner of any media source in hours of consumption.

It’s so sad that most of today’s discussions, and political ideologies are polarised by extremists who would rather sow division and hate, than to work toward compromise and a sane path forward. All a very disappointing
testament to to mankind’s use of the brain we’ve been given. .


#18

Very thoughtful David. And I agree completely. But the “hate fests”, are what get the ratings, which bring in the ad revenues.

I guess you could chalk this up to the dark side of men’s personalities. We all have one.

Precisely why I don’t follow politics as much as I used to.


#19

yes, revenue, as we both mentioned, but also…when one doesn’t really have a good platform to entic the majority with the strategy becomes the vilification of the opposition…

Most people don’t realise the extent to which their opinions are manipulated with words. The simple use of “compound” as opposed to “church” or “farm” can sway many opinions.

The misuse of “liberal”, “socialist”, and “conservative” are abundant.

As an example: Republicans are touted as a “conservative” party…while presently they are very socially conservative, their fiscal policies of cutting revenue, while maintaining a borrow & spend policy that deepens debt, adds cost to everything we pay for, and is quite liberal as a fiscal policy in my view.

Their socially liberal opposition on he other hand is known for “tax & spend”…seems slightly more conservative.

True fiscal conservatives would be “tax and pay bills”…Once the bills are paid you can spend on extras or tax less…

PS I only have ten dollars to my name…I’ll loan you a hundred make-believe dollars and you can pretend you have that much to gamble with at the casino…just don’t lose or we’ll both need bailed out…welcome to the stock market…


#20

Net Neutrality is a hot topic as so many are these days.

On one side, folks speak of ending government regulation that keeps the large internet providers from offering various “plans” tailored to the individual wants of the consumer.

On the other side, folks speak of large internet providers raising their costs in a non-competitive market allowing only the information they deem worthy at a fair cost and other information they do not want public at a higher cost or not available at all.

I understand both sides of this. Since more than 50 million (50,000,000) homes (more than one person in the house) do not have access to more than one high speed internet provider, allowing large internet providers the opportunity to throttle or deny content in favor of other content seems to be dangerously Fascist in it inception. With out opportunity to choose another provider, there is no competition and no other choice of political, religious or any other opinion or facts. Imagine if the parent company to CNN was your only local internet provider. Do you want them deciding what internet information you have access to?

Just a thought.