FCC Begins Teardown Process on Net Neutrality

#79
#79
IPleadInsanity said:
I hate the corporate takeover of the net for advertising purposes. I watch a video on the local news website about a small child drowning and I must first endure a viagra commercial for 22 sec., and these commercials are getting longer not shorter.
Click to expand...


This is my biggest complaint. If I am being charged for the amount of data that I use......I should not have to put up with the advertisers. Let the advertising pay for the data used.
 
#82
#82
This is exactly what I've been talking about. Keep the FCC the **** away from the internet.

The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945—not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using "handie-talkies," declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story, would be formulated within months.

But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not allocate spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until 1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic delay.
Click to expand...

https://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#83
#83
It may seem surprising that they were so determined to preserve those vacant frequencies. Given that commercial TV station licenses were severely limited—enough to support only three national networks—they might have seen the scores of unused channels as a threat. What if policy makers got serious about increasing competition? Shrinking the TV band by slicing off chunks for mobile phone services could have protected incumbent broadcasters from future television competitors. Why, then, did they oppose it?

The answer: The broadcasters believed they held sufficient veto power to prevent the prospect of competing stations.
Click to expand...

big bad government doing all this stuff wrong. oh wait it was the corporations making these decisions....
 
#84
#84
and more.


by licensees called radio common carriers (RCCs) ....The RCCs intensely opposed cellular, rightly fearing that it would ravage their small-scale, barely profitable operations. They had a powerful ally in Motorola, then a pioneering wireless technology company. Both the RCCs and the private land mobile operators were excellent Motorola customers, buying radios that cost thousands of dollars each.
Click to expand...
 
#85
#85
LouderVol said:
big bad government doing all this stuff wrong. oh wait it was the corporations making these decisions....
Click to expand...

The point is you can't have crony capitalism without government as a vehicle. The FCC is a tool for the existing, big corporations to preserve their market share.
 
#86
#86
n_huffhines said:
The point is you can't have crony capitalism without government as a vehicle. The FCC is a tool for the existing, big corporations to preserve their market share.
Click to expand...

right, so the best thing to do to protect ourselves is remove the one thing pretending to protect us. Those wonderful corporations only took advantage because there was a system to take advantage of. if there is no system what so ever they will surely do right, right?

whats that about giving the fox and the keys to the hen house? huff complains about the fox having the keys but wants to get rid of the house....
 
#87
#87
LouderVol said:
right, so the best thing to do to protect ourselves is remove the one thing pretending to protect us. Those wonderful corporations only took advantage because there was a system to take advantage of. if there is no system what so ever they will surely do right, right?

whats that about giving the fox and the keys to the hen house? huff complains about the fox having the keys but wants to get rid of the house....
Click to expand...

This analogy makes absolutely no sense. We're not talking about protecting life. We're talking about access to communication technology. There is no hen house.

There was a road that was 17,000 lanes wide and in order to prevent overcrowding, the government restricted usage to 600 lanes. Defend and deflect all you want.
 
#88
#88
n_huffhines said:
This analogy makes absolutely no sense. We're not talking about protecting life. We're talking about access to communication technology. There is no hen house.

There was a road that was 17,000 lanes wide and in order to prevent overcrowding, the government restricted usage to 600 lanes. Defend and deflect all you want.
Click to expand...

the government per the users of the road who were making their money off of restricted access to said road.

ignore the cause and blame the government all you want. you just need to follow the money.

corporations aren't a magic bullet of justice and fairness. the free market is bought and paid for just like everything else.
 
#89
#89
LouderVol said:
the government per the users of the road who were making their money off of restricted access to said road.

ignore the cause and blame the government all you want. you just need to follow the money.

corporations aren't a magic bullet of justice and fairness. the free market is bought and paid for just like everything else.
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring the cause. As I've said, it's both parties, but you HAVE TO HAVE THE CORPORATION. That's a given. So if we can limit the involvement of the government so they can't empower cronyism, then we are fixing/preventing a major problem.
 
#90
#90
n_huffhines said:
I am not ignoring the cause. As I've said, it's both parties, but you HAVE TO HAVE THE CORPORATION. That's a given. So if we can limit the involvement of the government so they can't empower cronyism, then we are fixing/preventing a major problem.
Click to expand...

except that often when you limit the government you get the same or worse results than the cronyism. and the people have less recourse to stop said corporations.
 
#91
#91
LouderVol said:
except that often when you limit the government you get the same or worse results than the cronyism. and the people have less recourse to stop said corporations.
Click to expand...

We have the courts and anti-trust law. Why do you need another layer to protect you from monopolistic behavior of ISPs? What have they done/will they do that we can't cover with anti-trust?
 
#92
#92
n_huffhines said:
We have the courts and anti-trust law. Why do you need another layer to protect you from monopolistic behavior of ISPs? What have they done/will they do that we can't cover with anti-trust?
Click to expand...

I thought you wanted the government out of it?
 
#95
#95
n_huffhines said:
We have the courts and anti-trust law. Why do you need another layer to protect you from monopolistic behavior of ISPs? What have they done/will they do that we can't cover with anti-trust?
Click to expand...

sorry. work got in the way.

when have the courts fixed something? and in my world its better to not allow something than to go back retroactively and try to fix things.

ISPs I admittedly know little about, but with what I know about corporations is if they are big enough to buy off the government they aren't to be trusted. I don't care what their field is. when they are that big they are big enough to survive any temporary backlash from the "market", courts award billions that come out of the buyers pocket, and anti monopoly laws broke up the big Bell and gave a whole bunch of others that have us in pretty much in a similar spot.

and in this case this is getting rid of a layer, not adding a new one.
 
#96
#96
LouderVol said:
when have the courts fixed something?
Click to expand...

What are you even asking? The courts are the mechanism for enforcing the regulatory rules that are supposed to "fix" things. Whether we are talking about the FCC practicing net neutrality or we are applying antitrust law, ultimately it will come down to the courts.

and in my world its better to not allow something than to go back retroactively and try to fix things.
Click to expand...

This overly broad generalization is merely a personal opinion with nothing to back it up. I don't even know where to begin with it.


but with what I know about corporations is if they are big enough to buy off the government they aren't to be trusted. I don't care what their field is. when they are that big they are big enough to survive any temporary backlash from the "market", courts award billions that come out of the buyers pocket,
Click to expand...

We agree on all this.

and anti monopoly laws broke up the big Bell and gave a whole bunch of others that have us in pretty much in a similar spot.
Click to expand...

Ma Bell was created by government regulation and it was defeated by government regulation.

and in this case this is getting rid of a layer, not adding a new one.
Click to expand...

You have to justify it, either way. You don't take a layer as a default. You have to justify government activity, not the absence of government activity.
 
#97
#97
n_huffhines said:
What are you even asking? The courts are the mechanism for enforcing the regulatory rules that are supposed to "fix" things. Whether we are talking about the FCC practicing net neutrality or we are applying antitrust law, ultimately it will come down to the courts.



This overly broad generalization is merely a personal opinion with nothing to back it up. I don't even know where to begin with it.




We agree on all this.



Ma Bell was created by government regulation and it was defeated by government regulation.



You have to justify it, either way. You don't take a layer as a default. You have to justify government activity, not the absence of government activity.
Click to expand...

how many disasters does the free market stop? impossible to answer, how many does the government stop? almost as impossible to answer.

free market lets a bad thing happen and then "corrects" it. government is supposed to at least look ahead and say, this looks bad and it will harm our people; lets go ahead and not allow this. and in my opinion thats a better system. now even with the EPA, FDA and many many more crap still happens. but in no world can you point out the deficiencies of those agencies and say we would be better off without them when the underlying issue remains. powerful corporations. they only care about making money, everything else is secondary.

examples: tobacco, asbestos, oil, heck I could probably write a book on Monsanto from what my family has told me from experience. in each chase lack of regulation allowed millions to get hurt. even when the individual corps knew it was bad. asbestos is the example I am most familiar with, even knowing its cancer trapped in your walls people still used it. the last mine just shut down 5 years ago in Canada, China was buying it up. until, you guessed it government regulations shut it down.
 
#98
#98
LouderVol said:
how many disasters does the free market stop? impossible to answer, how many does the government stop? almost as impossible to answer.

free market lets a bad thing happen and then "corrects" it. government is supposed to at least look ahead and say, this looks bad and it will harm our people; lets go ahead and not allow this. and in my opinion thats a better system. now even with the EPA, FDA and many many more crap still happens. but in no world can you point out the deficiencies of those agencies and say we would be better off without them when the underlying issue remains. powerful corporations. they only care about making money, everything else is secondary.

examples: tobacco, asbestos, oil, heck I could probably write a book on Monsanto from what my family has told me from experience. in each chase lack of regulation allowed millions to get hurt. even when the individual corps knew it was bad. asbestos is the example I am most familiar with, even knowing its cancer trapped in your walls people still used it. the last mine just shut down 5 years ago in Canada, China was buying it up. until, you guessed it government regulations shut it down.
Click to expand...

Monsanto? Nevermind. You've successfully derailed the thread. You can't even tell me anything specific about why we need another layer of protection in this case, so you write paragraphs about other stuff.
 
#99
#99
n_huffhines said:
Monsanto? Nevermind. You've successfully derailed the thread. You can't even tell me anything specific about why we need another layer of protection in this case, so you write paragraphs about other stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm getting that he's saying that corporations (which are untrustworthy) get too big and control the government, so we need more government to control the corporations. And when the bigger government gets corrupted by the corporations, we need even more government to control the corporations. And so on and so on.
 
#100
#100
midnight orange said:
I'm getting that he's saying that corporations (which are untrustworthy) get too big and control the government, so we need more government to control the corporations. And when the bigger government gets corrupted by the corporations, we need even more government to control the corporations. And so on and so on.
Click to expand...

no, easiest fix is to just not allow the corporations to get in bed with the government. its the same difference as separation of church and state. there is an inherent disconnect in the two mission statements.

a lot of this could be fixed if we just changed up the way government worked instead of constant fix jobs. thats what allow corporations in. imo
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top