Ah yes. Undefined "reasonable" behavior, subject to review... presumably by a panel of regulators hired from the industry in question, with input from lobbyists. I feel like I've seen our government pull that one before...
FCC Turns Around On Net Neutrality With "Faster Lane" Rules - Update
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Well, politician is speaking. Guess we have to automatically ignore everything he says and listen to an anonymous source. After all, they are disagreeing with the politician, so they must be right!
I'm not saying this won't have bad repercussions. I'm not saying it will be good. However, it may not turn out to be Internet doomsday, either. Maybe, and this is just me speaking off-the-cuff, we should wait and see what actually happens before going Chicken Little.
I know that the government hasn't given much reason to trust it. However, there is a difference between skepticism and closer examination and automatically assuming the government will do the worst thing possible for the public.
Now, if this does turn out as bad as you all are saying it will, I'll be the first one to admit being wrong. I'll be happy to do so. Until then, I'm more interested in dealing with facts, not projections and assumptions.
I'm not saying this won't have bad repercussions. I'm not saying it will be good. However, it may not turn out to be Internet doomsday, either. Maybe, and this is just me speaking off-the-cuff, we should wait and see what actually happens before going Chicken Little.
I know that the government hasn't given much reason to trust it. However, there is a difference between skepticism and closer examination and automatically assuming the government will do the worst thing possible for the public.
Now, if this does turn out as bad as you all are saying it will, I'll be the first one to admit being wrong. I'll be happy to do so. Until then, I'm more interested in dealing with facts, not projections and assumptions.
Yeah, I've been fuming ever since I read this article, actually. This guy is single handedly going to make things miserable for millions of people across the United States thanks to supporting business interests over the public interest. Something which historically does not work out well for either side.Kwil said:
there is little extra i can contribute that hasnt been said. i am just happy here in EU we have already saw this coming and made sure it wont. And also maybe europe will be the new internet hub after all, imagine if the default server location is actually less than half the world away.
the speed is in the contract. they are legally obligated to follow the contract.RvLeshrac said:
Damn, that sucks, America.
If it's any consolation, I bet our shitty Australian government will be keen to follow suit.
If it's any consolation, I bet our shitty Australian government will be keen to follow suit.
I'm not too worried. Even when they do manage to implement this stuff, what are the chances it's going to affect my bottom line?
You can't allow corporations to have natural monopolies. Period. The end result is always drastically inflated profit margins, stagnating infrastructure, and terrible service. ALWAYS. Because if a corporation isn't trying to do these things, it isn't maximizing profits. And if the people running the fucker aren't maximizing profits, the shareholders find someone else who will.
Shit.
You can't allow corporations to have natural monopolies. Period. The end result is always drastically inflated profit margins, stagnating infrastructure, and terrible service. ALWAYS. Because if a corporation isn't trying to do these things, it isn't maximizing profits. And if the people running the fucker aren't maximizing profits, the shareholders find someone else who will.
So get a bunch of the boys together rand go do it. All those guns you Americans wanted to be able to own sure look like a useful tool to protect your Moneys and Freedoms huh? Fire a few warning shots across the proverbial Pot Bow and get their attention.Mr. Q said:
You know what trumps money as relevance? Blood.kael013 said:
Money's a nice system, (unless you don't have any) but when a font of power is abused, it is up to those abused to seek ramifications. And given America's lovely and colored history, what're the chances that a very big conflict is heading my country's way? I'm just glad I'm poor at this point. I'd hate to be someone who has a lot of money in this country when that happens, because it will amount to a huge liability in the end.
And no, you won't see me shedding tears or having sympathy for the rich should it come to that.
Captcha: We Are Business Travel
Oho, captcha has such a nice sense of humor...
The problem is, if we wait and see, and it plays out exactly the way that everyone except the politicians, lobbyists, and tycoons said it would, it will be TOO LATE to speak out against it because they will already have REMOVED the primary mechanism by which citizens organize and voice their opinions.thebobmaster said:
Your post is like saying "let's let them censor speech, and then if we don't like the results I'll join you in complaining about it!" It sounds either disingenuous or insane, depending on what we think compelled you to say it.
What primary mechanism is that? Email? Online petitions? I'm not saying those don't play a part in protesting stuff, but you're being a bit disingenuous yourself if you think that they have any real impact. What does have an impact? Directly contacting your representatives. Contact news groups. I'm not talking about an online petition that gets sent...somewhere. Regular mail still exists. Net neutrality, as far as I'm aware, has no effect on email, since that is a rather basic part of the Internet. Not even the government would allow cable companies to charge extra for the use of email. That would be like charging extra for allowing you to fill online applications.WarpZone said:
I'm not trying to pick an argument, or be disingenuous/insane. But what form of organization does this remove?
Edit: It just occurred to me that you might be talking about message boards. If that is the case...do you really think the government cares what people say on message boards?
I have mixed feelings about Net Neutrality as a concept. On one hand it seems positive for the end user, at least looking at things through the lens of the short term. However, on the other hand, with more and more essential services migrating online, it seems rather nonsensical to suggest that all internet traffic is of equal value, for example medical advice provided remotely has got to trump someone chatting over Skype. I for one don't view the concept of a tiered system of internet traffic as a necessarily negative development. I do however agree that consideration should be given to implementation of such a system and most importantly ensuring there is effective competition in the provision of service, key to which is tackling the system of regional monopolies that has developed in many areas of the world.
I do however despair that rather than rational, thought through criticism of this decision, the majority of people just seem to have set their default position as "This is bad because corporations = PURE EVIL" and quite frankly this is childish and tiresome. Companies are not in reality evil, they are not run by, and for the benefit of Mr Burns-esk villainous sociopaths and do not expend their efforts trying to ruin people's lives. Much as some people suggest businesses don't care for their customers, in fact, they have as much invested in our personal prosperity as we do, as the more money we have the more goods and services we purchase from them. This is also very much a symbiotic relationship. The biggest beneficiaries of corporate profitability aren't individual billionaires in mansions sitting on piles of gold, but are in fact regular people. By far the biggest holders of corporate stocks and bonds are pension funds, followed by banks and insurance companies. Anyone who is saving towards a pension, or drawing one, anyone saving for their future or their children's, these are the people who benefit most from corporate profitability. Even if you ignore the jobs they create, or the tax they pay, a successful, profitable business is a positive thing, not something to be feared.
Now, I do believe that there are clearly questions to be asked about why someone who would appear to have such heavily vested interests in this particular industry was appointed to this position and it should be scrutinized as to whether said interests had any bearing on this decision. However, the link alone is not proof of corruption or that he had prioritised his interests over his professional remit. If the decision does look corrupt then it should be investigated and any wrongdoing should be addressed, but until that time it is quite a leap, and unfair to the individual involved to assume corruption.
I do however despair that rather than rational, thought through criticism of this decision, the majority of people just seem to have set their default position as "This is bad because corporations = PURE EVIL" and quite frankly this is childish and tiresome. Companies are not in reality evil, they are not run by, and for the benefit of Mr Burns-esk villainous sociopaths and do not expend their efforts trying to ruin people's lives. Much as some people suggest businesses don't care for their customers, in fact, they have as much invested in our personal prosperity as we do, as the more money we have the more goods and services we purchase from them. This is also very much a symbiotic relationship. The biggest beneficiaries of corporate profitability aren't individual billionaires in mansions sitting on piles of gold, but are in fact regular people. By far the biggest holders of corporate stocks and bonds are pension funds, followed by banks and insurance companies. Anyone who is saving towards a pension, or drawing one, anyone saving for their future or their children's, these are the people who benefit most from corporate profitability. Even if you ignore the jobs they create, or the tax they pay, a successful, profitable business is a positive thing, not something to be feared.
Now, I do believe that there are clearly questions to be asked about why someone who would appear to have such heavily vested interests in this particular industry was appointed to this position and it should be scrutinized as to whether said interests had any bearing on this decision. However, the link alone is not proof of corruption or that he had prioritised his interests over his professional remit. If the decision does look corrupt then it should be investigated and any wrongdoing should be addressed, but until that time it is quite a leap, and unfair to the individual involved to assume corruption.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=role+of+technology+in+arab+springthebobmaster said:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=role+of+technology+in+occupy+wall+street
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=role+of+the+internet+in+politics
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=role+of+social+media+in+activism
As you can see, modern social movements rely on the internet. All parts of the internet, but especially communications and social media.
If you give private corporations the power to decide whose webpage loads quickly or slowly, to throttle bandwidth based on the content, you are effectively giving them the power to silence the voices of anyone who opposes them or their interests.
Still don't like this ride. Still scary.
I am not reassured by his claims one freakin' bit. Even if he DOES uphold consumer values and prevent abuse, what's stopping the next guy from being a total sellout? >_>
I am not reassured by his claims one freakin' bit. Even if he DOES uphold consumer values and prevent abuse, what's stopping the next guy from being a total sellout? >_>
