dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-11-04 12:06:23: Back in September we argued that any serious chance at real network neutrality rules being passed was all but dead, crushed by typical partisan bickering among well-lobbied politicians, and Google and Skype (previously vociferous supporters of open p.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY

Dampier

Member

Net Neutrality Now on Back Burner

Cleland has been a paid shill for Big Telecom for several years now. He runs one of many astroturf front groups that proclaim an interest in "improving broadband," so long as improving is defined as whatever AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others want.

I think Net Neutrality has been a back burner issue since Genachowski began his Pondering Man routine, making lots of speeches with absolutely no action. The front groups are fearful something big could happen during the November meeting at the FCC later this month, but considering a year of inaction at the Commission, I sure am not holding my breath.

If Genachowski won't do it, it's a dead topic for two years under the GOP-controlled House (and the 80 dirty Dems who took AT&T money and ran).

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

Of the 73 Democratic signers of Rep. Green's anti-Net Neutrality letter, 37% lost their races.
I can't find anything to back that # up on the net.

bedder33
@comcast.net

bedder33

Anon

Now would be a great time not to comment, of course to stir up controversy you comment for no reason. It's simple math, do the math and you'll figure out the numbers, it comes out to around 37 percentish, and try to look other places besides Faux News

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49

Premium Member

If the communication duopolies would....

play nice things like net neutrality wouldn't of had to be done. Why do these corporate maggots keep on looking for trouble?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to bedder33

Premium Member

to bedder33

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

said by bedder33 :

Now would be a great time not to comment, of course to stir up controversy you comment for no reason. It's simple math, do the math and you'll figure out the numbers, it comes out to around 37 percentish, and try to look other places besides Faux News
Where is the list of 95 names? You have to sign up at PCCC to even see the names and I'm not going to do that. Were the 95 all House & Senate or were state legislators on list too. And when did it go from 95 to 73 names on the list? Even PCCC replied to the Hill news item that it was 95 names and they didn't deny that all lost. Maybe the 27 quoted at BBR were just the House and Senate signers.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to Dampier

Premium Member

to Dampier

Re: Net Neutrality Now on Back Burner

Besides stomping grounds such as DSLR, was net neutrality ever on a front burner? I don't believe most consumers care about, or even understand, net neutrality. There's even confusion on what net neutrality is across tech aficionados.

zalternate
join:2007-02-22
freedom land

zalternate

Member

Damn it! Net-neutrality is history

With the new bunch(GOP) in somewhat control(the party of NO,NO,NO), people can consider the many consumer protections that were implemented in the past couple of years to be destroyed over the next few years. And the 'potential' Net Neutrality is one of those.

There has been so much propaganda on things, that people were not properly informed of what was what. Even with the Internet, people still did not search out proper information. And as the proper news reports say, people are indeed getting more stupid, due to the Internet(and Faux news).

Sure would be nice to make Lobbying a crime. As well as making a crime of 'confidential'(secret donor) political donations. But unfortunately thats up to the law makers isn't it. Unless some people our there, want to file a lawsuit against the politicians who take Lobbying bribes or do money laundering.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9

Re: Net Neutrality Now on Back Burner

said by openbox9:

Besides stomping grounds such as DSLR, was net neutrality ever on a front burner? I don't believe most consumers care about, or even understand, net neutrality. There's even confusion on what net neutrality is across tech aficionados.
Pretty much. The reason Net Neutrality isn't a major issue for the average consumer is that it's intended to stop a problem that doesn't really exist to an major extent- yet. Aside from largely innocuous practices like redirects to an ISP page on a 404 error, there's not much to complain about at the moment, so people don't.

If it bleeds, it leads. For the most part, the providers haven't drawn blood yet.
podstolom
join:2010-01-25
Wichita, KS

podstolom to bedder33

Member

to bedder33

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

ROFL, yep, Faux News is...um...Right.
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned) to zalternate

Member

to zalternate

Re: Damn it! Net-neutrality is history

and morons in canada want to allow you americans to become isps up here. SCREW THAT
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver

Premium Member

I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

To me the solution to the problem is not some concept of neutrality. I would prefer to put a separation between infrastructure and content into the law. That is, create one company that can deliver a pipe to each home. But, the actual content is delivered by one or more separate companies. The content companies can compete on price and packages. There should not be competition on infrastructure - it is a waste of resources. This seems to be a logical separation that has been used in many industries. Of course, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and such will fight this tooth and nail.

PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA

PaulHikeS2 to zalternate

Member

to zalternate

Re: Damn it! Net-neutrality is history

What are the "many" consumer protections implemented in the past 2 years? And how exactly are they in danger with a Republican controlled House, Democrat controlled Senate, and Democrat controlled Executive branch?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Here's a more balanced report, including facts you missed

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578 ··· =nl.e703

the facts missed: (a) the Tea Party candidates who won (e.g. Rand Paul) may end up being strong supporters of increased privacy regulation. (b) Net Neutrality was not the reason candidates lost, or won. It's essentially a non-issue in these times, way way down the list of things voters considered.

BTW I've seen nothing refuting Scott Cleland's claim that all 95 signers of the www.NetNeutralityProtectors.com pledge lost. I'm not in the mood for fact-checking but I tend to believe it, why would he fudge something so easily verifiable?

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight

Member

How?

How can it be political kryptonite when practically no one (in the grand scheme of things) knows about it?
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

those lost there seats not because of anyhting they stood but because they are democrats. END OF STORY
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to zalternate

Premium Member

to zalternate

Re: Damn it! Net-neutrality is history

LOL at net neutrality being a "consumer protection". Net neutrality is simply an attempt at regulatory power grab by the "new media" companies who don't own the pipes (e.g. Google). They want the ISPs relegated to be dumb pipes so they can't compete with them. What you call "consumer protection" is simply the government decreasing free market competition which inevitably drives up prices and drives down services for all.
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas to Murdoc49

Premium Member

to Murdoc49

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

What did they ever do that wasn't "playing nice"? Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. The only thing anyone ever cites is one statement by one AT&T exec years ago. Other arguments boil down to "please don't look at my pirated BitTorrent streams, and don't ever try to manage your network to limit bandwidth hogs."
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas to PapaMidnight

Premium Member

to PapaMidnight

Re: How?

Exactly.
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas to OwlSaver

Premium Member

to OwlSaver

Re: I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

So, you liked it back in the 50s/60s when AT&T had a government regulated monopoly on the telephone system, I guess. Yeah, that produced lots of innovation, and prices came down like crazy due to competition. Not.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to podstolom

Premium Member

to podstolom

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

said by podstolom:

ROFL, yep, Faux News is...um...Right.
»Fox really is fair & balanced; MSNBC not at all
»www.philly.com/philly/ne ··· und.html
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas

Re: I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

In the 50s and 60s, AT&T was vertically integrated just like the providers are today. The sold you the wires, the service, and the phone set. The innovation really came when that was separated and you could by service (well at least long distance) from any provider and phone equipment from any seller. So, I think we have vertical integration today and have little innovation and would get more if we separated the tiers.

As an example, I think that Comcast buying NBC will reduce choice and innovation, not spur it on. Also, as it stands today Internet only TV service is really limited. This is because Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T do not want it to impact their business. If they could not offer TV service, I think innovation would flourish.

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49 to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

so you have no problem with isps blocking legit traffic? I am not talking p2p here either.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to OwlSaver

Premium Member

to OwlSaver

Re: I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

said by OwlSaver:

In the 50s and 60s, AT&T was vertically integrated just like the providers are today. The sold you the wires, the service, and the phone set. The innovation really came when that was separated and you could by service (well at least long distance) from any provider and phone equipment from any seller. So, I think we have vertical integration today and have little innovation and would get more if we separated the tiers.
Hmm, I see your point but I think what I'm saying is that the ISP industry today is like the phone industry is today... you choose your own equipment (PC or phone), you choose your provider (choice of ISP or choice of long distance provider), and you go at it. The OP was saying the government should set up one company to own the pipes. That struck me as going back to the old days of AT&T. Not a perfect analogy but you see my point?
As an example, I think that Comcast buying NBC will reduce choice and innovation, not spur it on. Also, as it stands today Internet only TV service is really limited. This is because Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T do not want it to impact their business. If they could not offer TV service, I think innovation would flourish.
I think that's not the business reason for limited Internet TV service. The real drivers are not the cable systems, but the content providers (studios and producers). They are going to try to maximize their revenue. Right now Cable/Satellite have the vast majority of the viewers vs. Internet TV, therefore they will get much more advertising dollars, therefore they can offer much more to the content providers for their shows. Internet TV is seen as an attractive add-on to the base TV revenue, much like DVDs and syndication are, but it's not nearly as big as those are yet. So, Internet TV is sucking hind tit as the saying goes, therefore you see limited offerings and the premium stuff goes to cable/satellite. Whether this will change, and how fast, is a big question.

Regarding Comcast buying NBC Universal, this is not anything to worry about. In-house production for the outlets has been around for a long time (see broadcast TV), and hasn't really hurt innovation, lots of independent producers still sell their stuff in interesting ways. It's all about getting mindshare and viewer interest going, which will pump ratings. If Comcast doesn't syndicate NBC's stuff they are making a stupid business decision. Why limit your revenue and ROI from your in-house production, just so that people might sign up for Comcast over, say, DirecTV?
MyDogHsFleas

MyDogHsFleas to Murdoc49

Premium Member

to Murdoc49

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

said by Murdoc49:

so you have no problem with isps blocking legit traffic? I am not talking p2p here either.
I never said that. Again: when did they ever not "play nice"? The whole net neutrality argument is "there's no LAW stopping the ISPs from blocking/prioritizing traffic for EVIL REASONS!" My point is: it's a solution looking for a problem.

What you are asking like me saying I'm against warrantless wiretapping and you replying: "So you have no problem with terrorists planning their next attack?" I never said that.

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: Where did the 37% list of Dem losses come from

Thinking that any of the 24 hour news organizations are fair and balanced is ridiculous. They work a story to death and do so in a way that will stir up controversy for whatever the current agenda or popular take on the subject happens to be (twitter anyone LOL). Thinking that there is any outlet without bias leads me to ask whether you would be interested in buying a bridge I "own"...

JMHO
Mike
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Well, veering wildly off topic, but that was an interesting find. I draw similar conclusions watching the cable news channels but it's nice to see someone actually make a study.

The thing I don't like about the progressive/liberal wing is that they not only have opinions, they think that if you don't agree, you're stupid and/or racist, and you simply need to educate yourself and get smarter and you'll see the light. I find this highly arrogant and insulting, and so do most people. This is why they end up in their own little circle jerk, because no one really wants to discuss the issues with them.

I see the same thing coming out of the White House, even after this crushing defeat on Tuesday. The people are scared and angry, so they're not thinking straight! If only they would listen to us, get educated on the facts, or maybe we need to communicate better! Then they'll understand and back us!

On the conservative side, you actually see a lot more tolerance and deference to the fact that people have different views. They will disagree, but they won't call you stupid, generally (except for the far right). Even Rush Limbaugh is at least polite to liberal callers, as O'Reilly (who's actually more a populist than a conservative) will have lots of liberal guests.

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

1 edit

coldmoon to 33358088

Premium Member

to 33358088
said by 33358088:

those lost there seats not because of anyhting they stood but because they are democrats. END OF STORY
Survey says....XXXX

The reason the party in power lost so many seats in the house is in direct relation to the state of the economy, too many people being out of work, and no solutions coming from said party to resolve these issues fast enough. If the Republicans have as efficient a legislative session between now and 2012, they will get the boot and we will start all over again.

Washington is not going to change because the population got angry and swept a current lineup out of office. All that has really happened is another round of musical chairs in the hopes that someone, somewhere, will get the message. Unfortunately, no one ever does...

JMHO
Mike
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

saw a good analogy from a GOP website commentator:

We took a stick and hit a snake with it. That does not mean our stick is a snake. We need to get our own snake, and it needs to be better than the one we hit.
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas

Re: I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

There is absolutely no perfect solution. No matter what is done or not done, someone is going to be un happy.

I think DirectTVs Sunday ticket is an example of the problem that I see cropping up. The Sunday Ticket (BTW, I do not care much about football, so it does not impact me) is used by Direct TV to get and keep viewers. That is a fine competitive stance. But, it creates an artificial limit on the availability. Wouldn't it be "better" if the NFL could sell Sunday Ticket to anyone on any system? I see Comcast doing the same thing with NBC. They may limit some high value content just so that people will switch from Direct TV or FiOS to Comcast. Or even worse keeps people subscribing to Cable Service rather than just getting entertainment over the Internet.

I have FiOS and think it is great. But, for Cable TV, I have to use their infrastructure, their STB, and their content. I envision a future where I have a High Speed Internet Pipe and can use any equipment to get any content. It seems to me that this will be much better than what we have today.

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49 to MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

to MyDogHsFleas

Re: If the communication duopolies would....

The terrorist thing was a bad example, as in the Big G would have to monitor itself, because they are the ones doing the terrorising......I get the point though buddy. Apologize ahead of time for going off topic slightly.
page: 1 · 2 · next