patrick.net

FortWayne says

Finally Obama does something really good.

You won't believe it FortWayne, but I was just thinking of putting this up with the same heading.
It's one of the few good things he has done recently. I hate those cable companies. Dirty filthy criminals. Horse thieves.

I know what you mean, I reckon they are worse than horse thieves.

They want to dictate what sites we visit or don't visit by creating fast lanes for privileged class of websites and blogs, and cut the rest of us off. These people have no shame.

Call it Crazy says

FortWayne says

They want to dictate what sites we visit or don't visit

That's the issue right there..

Do you really think the FCC and Obama are really going to do something that will "help" you?

They control the MSM, now they want to control the independent voices on the Internet!

The stock prices of these scumbag cable companies are taking a big hit. Investors are taking Obamas remarks seriously.
These greedy pigs are bent on stifling competition and milking the consumer as much as they ca.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

These greedy pigs are bent on stifling competition and milking the consumer as much as they can.

How do they stifle competition?

the consumer is very limited in having a choice of which company they want to deal with, much like the phone companies in the bad old days.
Not acceptable.

Call it Crazy says

That's the issue right there..

Do you really think the FCC and Obama are really going to do something that will "help" you?

They control the MSM, now they want to control the independent voices on the Internet!

At the moment, yes. Because I know cable companies are not on my side, they are trying to squeeze us, just flip us upside down and shake whatever change we got left in our pockets.

Geeze, even Obama is pissed off at the cable guy.

Dan8267 says

Geeze, even Obama is pissed off at the cable guy.

He's going to have a lot of time to catch up on TV when he leaves office.
The whole world knows his management skills by now. THere's not a resume writer in the world that make him employable.

Clinton was making millions a year doing speaking engagements, G.W. Bush hasn't been heard from since he left. I think Obama will fall in the category.
I'm sure he'll do some NAACP rallies but they don't pay that Harvard money.

Call it Crazy says

And you think Obama is doing this to "help" YOU??

In most metro areas, you have at least 3 choices for an ISP. Some even more. The same as with cellular providers... How many different ones do you need?

In my Metro area I have only 1 choice. Nothing else, just one choice. And that choice is trying to find a way to double bill by charging for delivery on both sides of the transaction.

Call it Crazy says

FortWayne says

In my Metro area I have only 1 choice. Nothing else, just one choice.

Really? Usually there's a existing copper provider (Verizon, AT&T, Earthlink), a cable provider (Comcast, Optimum, Time Warner) and even satellite providers (dishNET) for Internet access in most areas.

Yes, only one choice out here.

Indeed. American capitalism in action.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257404/why-is-american-internet-so-slow

Furthermore, near monopoly control of the residential communications infrastructure by cable operators and telephone companies manifests itself as relatively high pricing and lower quality in the U.S. [Professor Richard Taylor and Eun-A Park via Academic.edu]

CaptainShuddup says

Clinton was making millions a year doing speaking engagements, G.W. Bush hasn't been heard from since he left. I think Obama will fall in the category.

You have to be kidding. He'll be making huge bucks at speaking engagements. And he still has 2 years to get his numbers up. Clinton was down to low ratings at one point too.

Does this mean we can't call him Obummerfuck any more?

Yup, he is ready to go to bat for us all right.
That is why he appointed telecom lobbyist Tom Wheeler to chair the FCC.
Lobbyist or regulator? I wonder if Wheeler remembers what his job is.

Who's always lookin' out for you?

Obama that's who!

Who never takes you for the fool...

That's Obama dude!

Who does you right and sings to you...

Obama that's who!

Who got food stamps and healthcare too

Obama's precious few...

That Man! He's always lookin out for you.

Dew de doot doo do

CaptainShuddup says

Who's always lookin' out for you?

Obama that's who!

Who never takes you for the fool...

That's Obama dude!

Who does you right and sings to you...

Obama that's who!

Who got food stamps and healthcare too

Obama's precious few...

That Man! He's always lookin out for you.

Dew de doot doo do

You have been singing a lot. Is it love or is it the Senate?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/10/statement-president-net-neutrality

While Republicans completely sold out net neutrality to cable companies seeking to play gatekeeper.

FortWayne says

Finally Obama does something really good.

Wow, I must have missed the part where he resigned. Do you have a link??

To resign would be the ONLY really good thing that he could do for this country.

Ceffer says

Does this mean we can't call him Obummerfuck any more?

No, we certainly can ... and will.

bgamall4 says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

FortWayne says

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/10/statement-president-net-neutrality

While Republicans completely sold out net neutrality to cable companies seeking to play gatekeeper.

Why do you hate Innovation?

I hate the internet not being the same for everyone. It destroys free speech. Why do you accept that? The people who can pay will receive and give free speech. The rest are out of luck. Not that we get any help from Screwgle now anyway. But the fast lane will destroy any free speech left.

AF is just being very sarcastic. It's his style. Some days I only visit the forum just to read his witty comments about Republican and Democrat extremes.

Dsl is crap in my area as soon as I changed to timewarner it became 3 times faster for half the price. ATT is the ripoff.

Call it Crazy says

In most metro areas, you have at least 3 choices for an ISP. Some even more.

You do? In the heart of Silicon Valley my only choice is Comcast unless I'm willing to settle for 768K DSL like I had around 2001, or 1.5 mbps satellite which is too slow to stream decent quality video.

Call it Crazy says

In most metro areas, you have at least 3 choices for an ISP. Some even more. The same as with cellular providers... How many different ones do you need?

I'm within a few miles of the state capitol.

3 choices:

-- Satellite: latency makes remote desktop impossible, which is a sine qua non. Speed is too low for my household - beaucoup streaming by videoholic family member.
-- DSL: I can walk to the exchange from here. Fat lot of good it does: the copper has all manner of squirrels' nests and bridge taps, so 25 Mbps down in a good day, but most days aren't good. Gave up after a few months. I could live with that speed, which is a disgrace by modern standards, but latency and service hiccups were unacceptable
-- Cable: 75 Mpbs down, excellent latency, and highly reliable. $$$

Effectively I have one provider. They can pretty much charge whatever they want, and I have to pay it, or move out, do to my professional responsibilities (VPN/remote desktop).

This has always been the case: I have never lived at a place where I had a choice between two or more providers, either of which would suit my purposes, and could choose between the two based on price. I have a friend a few blocks away who gets excellent DSL, as she is right on top of the exchange; I would bet that she is among a small minority in Denver with 2 viable choices.

The U.S. is at least better than Mexico when it comes to broadband speeds and reliability. I'm so proud to be an American.

The phone lines are pushing their limit for bandwidth, and will soon be obsolete; cable is not far behind. Within 10 years, low-latency 1 Gpbs access will be mandatory for home users. It is not happening, and it is a national disgrace. Only Verizon and Google are doing anything about this (fiber, fiber, fiber), and most cities, mine included, have neither.

FortWayne says

President Obama threw down the gauntlet Monday with cable companies and Internet providers by declaring they shouldn't be allowed to cut deals with online services like YouTube to move their content faster.

Good Man!

Fuckin A' Bubba!

Sometimes FortWayne, you remind me vividly of my young voter romance with Ronnie. The Big Tent. The idea that we are citizens who should be treated with respect, and not just "consumers" captive to corporations.

Fuckin A!

You guys are not paying attention, we went over this before.

The problem is not a market problem (of course it never is), of course the problem is with the government, but in this case it is the cities who create the monopolies.

Some cities in the US have very fast internet because their city does not demand any favors.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

This is funny it is an article about the same thing from the NY Times, indicating the problem is a lack of competition, funny stuff. Is there anyone more perfunctory than a progressive?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upshot/why-the-us-has-fallen-behind-in-internet-speed-and-affordability.html?abt=0002&abg=1

bgamall4 says

But isn't fast lane tied to more competition?

No, there are developments in Korea that are 100 times faster than the avg US broadband. The avg in Korea is twice as fast than the US and half the price. There are towns in the US, out in the sticks, that have much faster internet than the bigger cities in the US.

What I'm trying to learn the mutts is that monopoly has to do with greedy government (cities) not, as the NY Times would have you believe, corporations.

As with all technology, as gets improved it gets cheaper, unless there is a monopoly preventing competition.

I live in LA area... I have the choice of TWC or FIOS.... The prices are pretty much identical. Same price in collusion isnt a lot of choice. They are utility companies.... and should be treated as such. And don't tell me DSL or satellite internet are options... That's like saying dial up is and option.

Atleast TWC and FIOS upgraded their speeds recently... They are atleast throwing is a bone.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

the consumer is very limited in having a choice of which company they want to deal with,

FortWayne says

Because I know cable companies are not on my side, they are trying to squeeze us,

And you think Obama is doing this to "help" YOU??

In most metro areas, you have at least 3 choices for an ISP. Some even more. The same as with cellular providers... How many different ones do you need?

Do you really want the government to step in and control the Internet? Think long and hard before answering....

Just remember the bang up job they've done with everything else they've put their hands on!

BoomAndBustCycle says

I live in LA area... I have the choice of TWC or FIOS.... The prices are pretty much identical. Same price in collusion isnt a lot of choice. They are utility companies.... and should be treated as such. And don't tell me DSL or satellite internet are options... That's like saying dial up is and option.

Atleast TWC and FIOS upgraded their speeds recently... They are atleast throwing is a bone.

It is good to see that you are paying attention...

disingenuous says

The avg in Korea is twice as fast than the US and half the price ... What I'm trying to learn the mutts is that monopoly has to do with greedy government (cities)

And Korea's broadband is notoriously heavily regulated, which flushes your entire thesis down the toilet into the sewers where it belongs.

HydroCabron says

And Korea's broadband is notoriously heavily regulated, which flushes your entire thesis down the toilet into the sewers where it belongs

No you mutt, I'm talking about South Korea

Read the article, Korea does not have monopolies like the US cities do, or their prices would be high not half of the US cost at twice the speed.

IOW regulations are not the same as monopolies.

disingenous says

HydroCabron says

And Korea's broadband is notoriously heavily regulated, which flushes your entire thesis down the toilet into the sewers where it belongs

No you mutt, I'm talking about South Korea

Facepalm.

I have to agree with FortWayne on this one. I like that Obama appears to be trying to keep part of the internet free. I haven't read the bill and understand there is all sorts of crap in it I wouldn't want to see happen. Things like moving control of the internet outside of the US etc. So while I don't trust him, I can see right through the shit the new Republican critters are trying to push right now.

All I want to see in any such bill is one statement: Internet providers must treat all data the same. (minimal regulation)

No free market BS until there really is one. I've lived in various places around the bay area and now San Diego and I've only ever had the option of ONE cable company or shitty DSL not good enough for my profession. My friends and family in Texas have it almost as bad. Cable companies are losing business from internet activity and want to take control of what you do and see and profit from it. They can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. If they need to raise prices 'in general' I have no problem with that - so long as there are no restrictions from someone else starting a cheaper service to compete with them.

Telephone companies don't throttle your voice data nor do VOIP companies. The electric company doesn't throttle your electricity (yet) nor does the water company (yet). These days information is almost as critical as food and water. We should all have free access to it within the service we sign up for.

My 2cents...

indigenous says

The problem is not a market problem (of course it never is), of course the problem is with the government, but in this case it is the cities who create the monopolies.

"it never is" ... oh really?

Because historically there have never been telecom monopolies in a "true free market"? Do you believe America has one of the freest market economies in the world? If so ... *cough* ... what has out history been like with telecom providers?

Do you agree that a free market, as you define it, is like a utopia? Meaning, it's excellent on paper and in thought, but can never be attained?

Historically, which happens first, strong economy or strong government? (I'll give you a hint, one is the product of the other. This is NOT a chicken or the egg problem. One definitively precedes the other.)

Rew says

"it never is" ... oh really?

You betcha...

indigenous says

Rew says

"it never is" ... oh really?

You betcha...

You think monopolies, trade imbalances, and rampant inequality do not occur in pure free markets? Or are those acceptable problems?

What about drugs, weapons, slavery/human trafficking? Are you or are you not going to enforce some control over these, or just allow them to occur/be traded by free market whim?

Very quickly, in a pure free market, you will find people born into life with mud and sticks as their birth right, working for a very few, who control their lives entirely.

Rew says

You think monopolies, trade imbalances, and rampant inequality do not occur in pure free markets?

Sactly

Rew says

What about drugs, weapons, slavery/human trafficking? Are you or are you not going to enforce some control over these, or just allow them to occur/be traded by free market whim?

This is no longer in the realm of a free market, that would be who has more ability to coerce. But even then it would likely not be a monopoly.

indigenous says

This is no longer in the realm of a free market, that would be who has more ability to coerce. But even then it would likely not be a monopoly.

So, your "free market" is only an ideal, and could never be found in a human society. It's not a solution, it's only a dream, or an exercise in philosophical discussion and academia at best.

Rew says

your "free market" is only an ideal,

NO

Rew says

So, your "free market" is only an ideal, and could never be found in a human society. It's not a solution, it's only a dream, or an exercise in philosophical discussion and academia at best.

Per praxeology and Rando-Misean hemicephalic traditions, a free market is what they say it is, and when they say it is.

For instance, a municipal government which might charge a business fees is a statist tyranny. A national government being granted immense taxation authority and military firepower to keep out brown people is not statist in the least, so stop saying that.

The distinctions are very subtle, and cannot be grasped until you have advanced to the 15th level by paying for all of the coursework. Brown people and abortion are usually somewhere in the definition of the line between statism and reasonable small government.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

exploit them all to take over the universe and every last exploitable asset in it, exactly as the Founding Fathers intended

The greatest tyranny is that people have different views from this.

Other opinions merely victimize conservatives, and oppress them with unbearable social pressure far worse than anything inflicted at Auschwitz or Treblinka.

In 100 years, historians will marvel at the victimization of conservatives, which surpasses anything inflicted on anyone in all other places and times throughout history.

I was surprised to see a relatively balanced blog in WaPo. From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/ted-cruz-was-right-about-net-neutrality-it-is-a-little-like-obamacare-after-all/

Without net neutrality, Americans could see certain Web sites slowed, blocked or sped up at the expense of others. Policy experts argue this would be less of a problem if three things were true: 1) If Internet providers added more capacity they wouldn't have to prioritize some traffic over others; 2) if Americans had more broadband providers to choose from in their local area; and 3) if it were easier to switch between carriers. Unfortunately for many consumers, the broadband market fails this test. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said there is a "duopoly" in broadband service in many parts of America. To buy high speed plans, 82 percent of Americans can choose from only two Internet providers. There's not enough competition in Internet access.

...By adopting a legally complex regulatory proposal...

As we've seen with the lawsuits, both Obamacare and net neutrality are legally fraught. That's because the proposals on the table are so complex and have so many legal twists and turns that it's relatively easy for critics to target a piece of it for attack. In the case of Obamacare, it was first the individual mandate, and now the subsidies. With net neutrality, the FCC has proposed a complicated system that allows ISPs to strike commercial deals with content companies. Under the existing proposal, those deals must then satisfy a complex "reasonableness" test. It's all very arcane, and arguably addresses the core issue of competition only indirectly.

HydroCabron says

disingenous says

HydroCabron says

And Korea's broadband is notoriously heavily regulated, which flushes your entire thesis down the toilet into the sewers where it belongs

No you mutt, I'm talking about South Korea

Facepalm.

You are lying. South Korea does NOT have net neutrality. In fact, they charge more for voIP.
http://www.itworld.com/article/2723092/networking/south-korean-telcos-get-ok-to-charge-extra-for-mobile-voip-apps.html