Michele Bachmann lies or is completely ignorant about Net Neutrality

[BotanicalBob]

The only thing Net Neutrality does is give the FCC the power to continue doing what they have been for years.

Stupid alert!!!

If they already have the power, then why do they need NN?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

I still don't think people understand what Net Neutrality actually means, and yesterday I came across a good example.

My roommate and I were going to watch the new South Park on the Official South Park website. He tried to load it up on his, but was told "This episode will not be up until 5/15 due to previous contract agreements." We thought this was weird, and loaded it up on my computer instead. It worked just fine.

But what if instead of a glitch in the system, my roommate and I had both had different providers? What if Verison didn't like South Park, and would put that delay on intentionally. Wouldn't you feel a bit cheated if that happened? Sure, you could change to Comcast if you live in the right area I guess, but you'd already be hooked up to Verizon, so most wouldn't. Even beyond that, Comcast may block other things you like.

The only thing Net Neutrality does is give the FCC the power to continue doing what they have been for years.




On a site note, why are people saying satellite internet is a good alternative? They could do the same thing the ground based ones will, and it's not like a small business can send up it's own satellite.

I can't help but think your example would turn out to be the "good old days", once you let the Government controll, through the FCC, decide when and if you could download South Park.

 

[Jackinbox78]

And with satellite and wireless technologies, geography ceases to become an issue. Who tries to block these services? Cable companies colluding with the government.


So ATT built the cable TV network?


But you're assuming that everybody will do something that makes no sense for them to do. Future technological innovations provide competition, which is far from irrelevant. Again, the more competition you have, the more dangerous it becomes to screw your customers like this.

All your argument are based on the premise that there is or there will be a lot of competition and net neutrality is no necessary in a competitive environment. You know what? If we had the choice between tens of independent providers I would mostly (but not quite) agree. The reality is that the very nature of the technology make it so that monopolies and quasi-monopolies are inevitable in many towns. Maybe 20 years from now technologies will be cheap enough so that it's no longer an issue but that not where we are now.

And let me remind you that Bachmann is still an idiot not matter what.

 

[Umaro]

Stupid alert!!!

If they already have the power, then why do they need NN?

A personal insult with no argument? Classy.

Net Neutrality is needed because recently the corporations are suing the FCC, claiming that the FCC does not have the power to keep everything neutral. The FCC then went to the government, and asked for the Net Neutrality bill which will close the loophole the corporations are trying to use.

Basically it would be the same as a food manufacturer suing the FDA over a loophole to be allowed more e-coli in your food, and the FDA asking the government to close the loophole.

 

[KarateCowboy]

All your argument are based

AND ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!


I WIN!!!

 

[Jackinbox78]

Internet as dreamed by the cable companies:

 

[ReverendDG]

And with satellite and wireless technologies, geography ceases to become an issue. Who tries to block these services? Cable companies colluding with the government.

did i say it wasn't? no i said there is more to it than you are admitting, costs of building that network restricts the amount of companies who are willing to invest in broadband.
you do realize that your magical solution still costs money right? shooting a satellite into space or leasing one still costs money you know.

So ATT built the cable TV network?

sigh, no. i was talking about dsl, cable companies don't lease anyone lines to resell.

But you're assuming that everybody will do something that makes no sense for them to do.

you are assuming that they won't do it though, when it has already been shown comcast will.

Future technological innovations provide competition, which is far from irrelevant. Again, the more competition you have, the more dangerous it becomes to screw your customers like this.

then you really don't understand computer tech and the common man.
tech that isn't mainstream doesn't matter till it is here, so we should be discussing services that exist for 99% of broadband users.

it doesn't matter as i said, what tech you are talking about if large corps that control the last mile market. they could decide to change their policies to where it abuses the customers by filtering packets that come from businesses that they don't like.

the truth is, no matter how many alternatives you bring up, they are all going to be costly to anyone who decides to start a broadband company, including wimax.

do you really understand the concern here? or is it just about a law being put in place for something that isn't presently an dire issue, but could be in about 2-3 years?

 

[ReverendDG]

Internet as dreamed by the cable companies:

well cox is doing just that, they are removing their usenet server for lack of use. they are not reducing the price for this change, instead they are charging more if you still what usenet.

i don't use usenet, but its bogus to not reduce our payments, when usenet was part of it.
even worse to make people pay more for a service, they recently had.

 

[Sketcher]

All your argument are based on the premise that there is or there will be a lot of competition and net neutrality is no necessary in a competitive environment. You know what? If we had the choice between tens of independent providers I would mostly (but not quite) agree. The reality is that the very nature of the technology make it so that monopolies and quasi-monopolies are inevitable in many towns. Maybe 20 years from now technologies will be cheap enough so that it's no longer an issue but that not where we are now.

The nature of the technology is it advances and becomes cheaper at an alarming rate, and independent of the cable company influencing what the government allows, there is no reason why we won't be seeing more competition in 2-3 years.

did i say it wasn't? no i said there is more to it than you are admitting, costs of building that network restricts the amount of companies who are willing to invest in broadband.
you do realize that your magical solution still costs money right? shooting a satellite into space or leasing one still costs money you know.

Yes, it costs money. Money that you can make back by reaching customers. If DirecTV and Dish Network could become successful, so can Internet equivalents, especially with the newer dishes. And WiMax - Comcast is outright scared of that coming to town.

sigh, no. i was talking about dsl, cable companies don't lease anyone lines to resell.

An example of competition at work.

you are assuming that they won't do it though, when it has already been shown comcast will.

It's been shown that Comcast can't get away with it even without Net Neutrality regulation.

then you really don't understand computer tech and the common man.

Yeah, I'm a PC tech and I don't understand either of those.

tech that isn't mainstream doesn't matter till it is here, so we should be discussing services that exist for 99% of broadband users.

What is more relevant is what's blocking access to the tech that is already here. WiMax is out there. WildBlue satellite Internet service is out there. The question we need to ask is why are they not choices in most American communities.

it doesn't matter as i said, what tech you are talking about if large corps that control the last mile market. they could decide to change their policies to where it abuses the customers by filtering packets that come from businesses that they don't like.

But why are they not doing it? This whole Net Neutrality thing is about a phantom threat.

do you really understand the concern here? or is it just about a law being put in place for something that isn't presently an dire issue, but could be in about 2-3 years?

In 2-3 years, we can have more high speed alternatives available, making the point moot.

 

[Umaro]

The nature of the technology is it advances and becomes cheaper at an alarming rate, and independent of the cable company influencing what the government allows, there is no reason why we won't be seeing more competition in 2-3 years.

Do you have any idea how technology works? It's never going to get any cheaper to dig a ditch down the side of every road in the nation with a house on it, and bury a cable. It is literally an Impossible gap to jump.

 

[Sketcher]

Do you have any idea how technology works? It's never going to get any cheaper to dig a ditch down the side of every road in the nation with a house on it, and bury a cable. It is literally an Impossible gap to jump.

The more wireless you go, the less digging there is to do.

 

[Umaro]

The more wireless you go, the less digging there is to do.

Ok, so where does the funding to develop and patent that new technology come from? If it's a race to see who can do it first in the world, are you going to bet on the kid out of college or Apple who throws millions every year at the best scientists? It's no longer a fair game.

 

[Sketcher]

Ok, so where does the funding to develop and patent that new technology come from? If it's a race to see who can do it first in the world, are you going to bet on the kid out of college or Apple who throws millions every year at the best scientists? It's no longer a fair game.

It's an investment, to be sure. But that doesn't automatically condemn the market to being controlled by 2 or 3 companies. Also, it is more fair for the government to step out of the way than it is to be involved in the industry, since government involvement begets lobbying by those already in the business. However, this is getting away from the subject at hand. There's no reason to have this regulation now. There wasn't when people were calling for it years ago. And again, in 2-3 years, I believe we can have more choices for Internet service, regardless of who owns what. As long as the satellite and WiMax and cable and DSL and the cellular are competing with each other, the customer wins.

 

[Umaro]

It's an investment, to be sure. But that doesn't automatically condemn the market to being controlled by 2 or 3 companies. Also, it is more fair for the government to step out of the way than it is to be involved in the industry, since government involvement begets lobbying by those already in the business. However, this is getting away from the subject at hand. There's no reason to have this regulation now. There wasn't when people were calling for it years ago. And again, in 2-3 years, I believe we can have more choices for Internet service, regardless of who owns what. As long as the satellite and WiMax and cable and DSL and the cellular are competing with each other, the customer wins.

You don't see any difference between someone with an average salary to invest and someone with millions of dollars?

Let's have a race to build a house you and I. I'll start with $1 million, and you get to save up. Let's see who gets it built first.

 

[Sketcher]

You don't see any difference between someone with an average salary to invest and someone with millions of dollars?

Let's have a race to build a house you and I. I'll start with $1 million, and you get to save up. Let's see who gets it built first.

What I'm saying is that when investing, someone with a few million can do it, that it's not entirely reserved to those with a few hundred million. "Big corporations" would obviously be in the second category.

 

[Umaro]

What I'm saying is that when investing, someone with a few million can do it, that it's not entirely reserved to those with a few hundred million. "Big corporations" would obviously be in the second category.

How does that help the 98% of the country that makes less than $250k a year?

 

[KarateCowboy]

At the office here on Michigan Ave in Chicago I fulfill the role of Chief Technical Officer. We had slow internet with high prices. We were getting something like 3 Mbps at about $500 a month(businesses get charged mucho moola for the same service individuals get for a measly $30 a month). AT&T is the only company that had access to the building. That's why. We tried to get Comcast but they required a certain amount of guaranteed patronage to install wiring in the building. We had to convince half the offices in a 23 floor building. Guess where that went! Well, along came Tower Stream, and now we're getting 10Mbps for the same price as AT&T's 3 Mbps. The company that "owns half the nation" got beat out by some Midwesterners with a WiMAX broadcaster.

This whole Net Neutrality debate is a joke. On one hand you have ignorant politicians who are paranoid of eeeeebul corporations, and on the other hand you have reactionary politicians who are just as ignorant. This is what happens when you have guys like John "I don't know how to answer my e-mail" McCain writing the laws. Really, do you think the others are much smarter? I wonder how many of them know what a hop is, much less how to configure their smart phones to use IMAP.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Ok, so where does the funding to develop and patent that new technology come from? If it's a race to see who can do it first in the world, are you going to bet on the kid out of college or Apple who throws millions every year at the best scientists? It's no longer a fair game.

Probably a kid out of college. Look at it like math. It seems most famous theories in math come from people who, even if they did not do what made them famous, was doing epically good math at a very young age.

 

[Umaro]

Probably a kid out of college. Look at it like math. It seems most famous theories in math come from people who, even if they did not do what made them famous, was doing epically good math at a very young age.

Yes, traditionally that is how it worked, but now we have corporations that can throw millions of dollars of research funds toward the scientists. The best and brightest no longer start their own company, they just go work for Google or Apple because it's the clear cut best choice. They're going to beat any individual to the punch on technology.

Also math does not take investment the same way technology does. Like would you think it plausable that some individual could beat Apple to the iPad concept? There's no way a startup business could design that touch screen better and before Apple.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Yes, traditionally that is how it worked, but now we have corporations that can throw millions of dollars of research funds toward the scientists. The best and brightest no longer start their own company, they just go work for Google or Apple because it's the clear cut best choice. They're going to beat any individual to the punch on technology.

Also math does not take investment the same way technology does. Like would you think it plausable that some individual could beat Apple to the iPad concept? There's no way a startup business could design that touch screen better and before Apple.

Someone already beat Apple to the iPad. Tablet PCs have been out since back when you were collecting Pokemon cards and soaking up all the collectivist dogma they taught you in your Public Indoctrination Center. They just didn't catch on the first time around. After people got used the idea of an ultra-portable laptop they then started to feel comfortable with the idea of a tablet PC. BTW I don't know why you're using the iPad as an example of The Next Big Thing, because the iPad sucks.