Post: #151

(12-17-2017 04:51 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat the same damn thing.

>Repeal net neutrality.
>Wait for ISPs to censor material.
>Insist that ISPs can no sooner censor content than electricity companies can deny service.
>Use the outrage to slam the 1A into internet provision.
>Win.

That would be a very bad approach no matter how many times you repeat it.

If the goal is to promote competition and investment in infrastructure, like what is being touted, then constant regulatory changes would kill that purpose.

Companies need stability and what you are suggesting is not even close to stability. No one is going to invest when they think some major regulatory change may happen in a year or two.

Post: #152

(12-17-2017 04:51 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat the same damn thing.

>Repeal net neutrality.
>Wait for ISPs to censor material.
>Insist that ISPs can no sooner censor content than electricity companies can deny service.
>Use the outrage to slam the 1A into internet provision.
>Win.

True. Net neutrality at its core has nothing to do with content, "free and open" internet, censorship or half the nonsense the fools on the left are saying. We already have leftoid silicon valley content mediums impudently doing as they please with respect to content regulation, regardless.

That said, there is a question as to whether or not the FCC is really qualified to get involved in differential distribution determinations, given their original mandate as regulators of what is now legacy communication infrastructure.

Post: #153

(12-17-2017 06:43 AM)Number one bummer Wrote:  

Google should just start its own ISP division, they are trying with Google Fiber but is not as easy as they think, building an infrastructure is a different game.

Post: #154

(12-17-2017 02:08 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 04:51 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat the same damn thing.

>Repeal net neutrality.
>Wait for ISPs to censor material.
>Insist that ISPs can no sooner censor content than electricity companies can deny service.
>Use the outrage to slam the 1A into internet provision.
>Win.

That would be a very bad approach no matter how many times you repeat it.

If the goal is to promote competition and investment in infrastructure, like what is being touted, then constant regulatory changes would kill that purpose.

Companies need stability and what you are suggesting is not even close to stability. No one is going to invest when they think some major regulatory change may happen in a year or two.

And how would ensuring "bigots" the right to unrestricted internet usage based on the expression of their beliefs possibly affect infrastructure investments?

And what makes you think what they're "touting" is the game plan? I've made it abundantly clear that there's the stated goal and the actual goal, but you seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

Post: #155

(12-17-2017 10:00 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  And how would ensuring "bigots" the right to unrestricted internet usage based on the expression of their beliefs possibly affect infrastructure investments?

And what makes you think what they're "touting" is the game plan? I've made it abundantly clear that there's the stated goal and the actual goal, but you seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

I agree that someone is being obtuse and it isn't me.

I stated constant changing of regulations is harmful for growth in both infrastructure and competition. Pai even mentioned something similar as to why he wanted to remove net neutrality. You state something about bigots and internet usage which has nothing to do with my comments nor Trump's nor Pai's.

You can come up with all these 4d chess, imaginary reasons, but Trump has been pretty clear as to why he has been pushing deregulations. Hint.. it isn't because he wants to screw over Facebook for not letting people post what they want.

Edited to add: I think there is a disconnect happening. You continue trying to make this into some sort of censorship based on ideology when most of us, if not all, haven't even mentioned that. Unrestricted access is all but gone since the ISP's can choose what to throttle and what they will allow through.

Post: #156

A thought.

Fairness act doctrines, and general FCC regulation of content, originated because there is a limited number of avaliable RF spectrum space.

As we are well aware, its basically been used to push the main narrative and crush anyone in disagreement.

If the avaliability of internet is somehow limited (possibly because there is no reason to invest into infrastructure) and the FCC is given control of the internet.

Whats to stop them from using the same logic to limit the internet?

Post: #157

Cruz is learning to shitpost.

Post: #158

Cruz is smart. Smacking down retarded Celebs is an easy way to increase your popular vote share. He's learned from Trump.

Post: #159

(12-17-2017 09:37 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 06:43 AM)Number one bummer Wrote:  

Google should just start its own ISP division, they are trying with Google Fiber but is not as easy as they think, building an infrastructure is a different game.

They didn't start their own ISP and are unlikely to do so, but they are now a registry for several different gTLDs (generic top level domains) and they can also sell addresses with those extensions and allow others to act as registrars (retailers, essentially) for them too. The list of Google-owned extensions ironically includes the .meme gTLD.

None of that has anything to do with net neutrality, but most of the people freaking out about it wouldn't be able to make that distinction.

Cruz and a bunch of others like Newt Gingrich already ran away with the false idea that the US was "giving away the Internet" when there was no such ownership in the first place, only involvement of the US Commerce Department in one aspect. Net neutrality has nothing to do with ownership and control of the Internet either, but if he can throw mud at a few dumb liberals along the way, what the hell I guess.

(12-17-2017 10:07 PM)ms224 Wrote:  A thought.

Fairness act doctrines, and general FCC regulation of content, originated because there is a limited number of avaliable RF spectrum space.

As we are well aware, its basically been used to push the main narrative and crush anyone in disagreement.

If the avaliability of internet is somehow limited (possibly because there is no reason to invest into infrastructure) and the FCC is given control of the internet.

Whats to stop them from using the same logic to limit the internet?

This is exactly why some people are wondering if the FCC is the right agency to get involved, and if not, can they be brought up to speed versus creating yet another federal bureaucracy with a questionable existence. Again though, none of what's actually in Title 2 or net neutrality itself has anything to do with content, which was what the basis of the "fairness doctrine" was about.

The Fairness Doctrine didn't get very far in the day and age of radio, and considering the expanse of the Internet, there's even less of an already weak argument supporting it now.

Post: #160

Lyin Ted Cruz should be christened Shit Talkin' Ted now.

Post: #161

(12-18-2017 02:31 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  They didn't start their own ISP and are unlikely to do so, but they are now a registry for several different gTLDs (generic top level domains) and they can also sell addresses with those extensions and allow others to act as registrars (retailers, essentially) for them too. The list of Google-owned extensions ironically includes the .meme gTLD.

What do you call Google Fiber? Google hasn't been laying out fiber optic cables in major cities to sell top domains.

In other news, Trump is pushing 5G as a national priority.

Post: #162

(12-19-2017 12:49 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 02:31 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  They didn't start their own ISP and are unlikely to do so, but they are now a registry for several different gTLDs (generic top level domains) and they can also sell addresses with those extensions and allow others to act as registrars (retailers, essentially) for them too. The list of Google-owned extensions ironically includes the .meme gTLD.

What do you call Google Fiber? Google hasn't been laying out fiber optic cables in major cities to sell top domains.

In other news, Trump is pushing 5G as a national priority.

My bad - I thought they were only going to do wireless but now it looks like they will try to do both depending upon the area, albeit facing lawsuits in the process. This will be interesting. They're going to be on thin ice the minute they start restricting content based on viewpoints more than they already are on YouTube. Corporate overreach was what got AT&T broken up back in the day.

Post: #163

(12-19-2017 04:45 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  My bad - I thought they were only going to do wireless but now it looks like they will try to do both depending upon the area, albeit facing lawsuits in the process. This will be interesting. They're going to be on thin ice the minute they start restricting content based on viewpoints more than they already are on YouTube. Corporate overreach was what got AT&T broken up back in the day.

When Google started entering Comcast markets, all of the sudden Comcast had some new fast wireless technology that was ready for that particular market. No doubt they have been sitting on this new tech and probably would if it wasn't for Google coming in.

Comcast always end up being at the top of the most hated companies list yet they continue making an enormous amount of money. You got to be a monopoly if people hate you more than the IRS. haha

I have a feeling Google and Amazon will end up getting split up down the road. I know Google keeps facing more and more problems from the EU.

Post: #164

Looks like the senate is overturning the net neutrality repeal. Tons of democrats are celebrating the decision.

Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted for it.

Post: #165

I'm far more worried about Google / Facebook / Twitter / Reddit censorship than Time Warner or AT&T. But neither should be empowered to privilege certain bits over other bits.

Post: #166

This is a nightmare. If they can mess with the internet they can definitely mess with the nodes that cryptocurrencies depends on as well.