Lol. I love how you reply, but cannot provide an example.
FCC to reinstate Net Neutrality Rules removed under Trump
- Thread starter Polds4OSU
- Start date
How did my reply work?
I appreciate your link to the op-ed from Tom Wheeler. I like Tom. Good guy. I truly believe he has the best interests at heart, but I also believe those that say he was swayed way too much from lobbying from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.
But the article didn’t list any problems being addressed with new regulations.
You added a couple of thoughts but I don’t see how they apply to current proposed regulations.
1) Keeping companies for creatively charging for “things that should be free or already included”
* what are things that should be free?
* The FCC is instituting the Broadband Facts Label later this quarter. All providers will have BFL. Net Neutrality regulations didn’t make that happen.
* FCC said multiple times, Tom Wheeler specifically promised that rate regulation is not part of Net Neutrality rules.
2) Forces companies to “maintain their service in the same light as telephone, mail, etc”
* I don’t know of a single person that wants Internet to be maintained like landline phones or mail.
I am unclear how a safety issue of Boeing remotely align with the need for Net Neutrality.
How Google's Silence Helped Net Neutrality Win
Google kept a very low profile during the past year's lobbying over net neutrality. That doesn't mean that the company didn't care about the outcome though. In fact, laying low may have been the best thing Google could have done.
Last edited:
lol. I love how I have repeatedly provided examples and you continue with this nonsense that no examples have been provided.
It reinforces and provides even more examples.
Tennessee House saw this post and has already created, passed and advanced a bill to the Senate to ban it in the state.
Trump saw this post and will call all broadband users Less than Human scum , animals and Anti American's in his Rally tonight
Biden will declare March 34nth Broad Band Appreciation Day.
Jim Jordan will immediately attack Biden and call for his impeachment for support of Broad Band and will tie the border situation in Texas to Broad Band
That sucks because I have a prior obligation on the 34nth
First. Why do you think net neutrality will have a significant detriment? I've yet to see any reason why it'll cause reduced innovation or development, only the ISPs claiming it will. Also don't understand why that would be the case when much of the network was paid for using tax dollars (Large grants continue to support this).I appreciate your link to the op-ed from Tom Wheeler. I like Tom. Good guy. I truly believe he has the best interests at heart, but I also believe those that say he was swayed way too much from lobbying from Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.
But the article didn’t list any problems being addressed with new regulations.
You added a couple of thoughts but I don’t see how they apply to current proposed regulations.
1) Keeping companies for creatively charging for “things that should be free or already included”
* what are things that should be free?
* The FCC is instituting the Broadband Facts Label later this quarter. All providers will have BFL. Net Neutrality regulations didn’t make that happen.
* FCC said multiple times, Tom Wheeler specifically promised that rate regulation is not part of Net Neutrality rules.
2) Forces companies to “maintain their service in the same light as telephone, mail, etc”
* I don’t know of a single person that wants Internet to be maintained like landline phones or mail.
I am unclear how a safety issue of Boeing remotely align with the need for Net Neutrality.
How Google's Silence Helped Net Neutrality Win
Google kept a very low profile during the past year's lobbying over net neutrality. That doesn't mean that the company didn't care about the outcome though. In fact, laying low may have been the best thing Google could have done.www.wired.com
Why should ISPs get funding to build network infrastructure and then get to charge us to use and not have any oversight after it's installed? If it's not a public utility then stop taking government money to build your system.
To adress your confusion on the tie between Boeing and ISPs. As I said Boeing argued for and was allowed to self regulate inspections of design and construction for commercial aircraft (see articlelinked below), similar to how ISPs want to self regulate and why they fought Net Neutrality (as mentioned in the previous article I linked and discussed).
That self regulation did not work and will never work because there is no short-term incentive for companies to hurt their bottom dollar to provide better (or in that case safer) product/service.
Thile Boeing example is a much more extreme situation (many lives lost vs slower internet or more expensive for certain content.... blah blah) but there's a reason that companies don't want regulation or want self regulation, but it can be important in public service cases.
I do want internet controlled in a manner similar to telephone and mail. I want to be able to depend on it and have everyone supported similarly and consistently because it is vital to modern life. Same as electric (other than Texas) and water. If you get it from a company they must do everything in their power to serve all equally and to their best ability, no pick and chose. Texas doesn't have the same regulation on their power grid... look how that has worked out for then recently. Public services need to have oversight and be forced to serve the people not their bottom dollar.
2022 NY Times article on Boeing
"Under a program known as Organization Designation Authorization, corporate employees are allowed to determine regulatory compliance on some matters on the F.A.A.’s behalf. Boeing had sought a five-year renewal of that authority, but the F.A.A. agreed to only three years.
The congressionally approved program drew sharp criticism after two crashes of Boeing’s 737 Max in 2018 and 2019 killed 346 people, leading to a ban of the plane globally for nearly two years. A federal law passed in 2020 made a number of aviation safety changes, including some focused on the Organization Designation Authorization program."
Your replies are in good meaning so I will read and reply later to rest of your post. But the bolder part is wrong. Or more specifically poorly worded. I would hope you agree less than 5% of funding should not be defined as “much”.
Your first and only previous post on this thread was, in its entirety: “Yes they have. You just refuse to engage with them in a good faith manner.” You’ve never “repeatedly provided examples”.
The only explanation is:
1) You got confused to which thread you were replying to.
2) You provided examples in your head, but never posted them
3) You forgot you used your sock account Vakarian earlier
#3 makes most sense to me
You will get no argument from me about government funding for network expansion. The +$2M WiFi to nowhere in Tulsa was ridiculous.
But to be clear there is oversight. Funding is designated only for network expansion to specific locations. There is no government money to enhance or maintain current broadband networks.
And, although debatable and certainly not exact, the funding only covers the incremental amount to expand the network. For example, if cost is normally $75K/mile, but households in underserved rurals areas will cost $125K/mile — the provider would be funded by government for difference.
I think we just have different viewpoints.
1) I don’t understand any value for controlling Internet like telephone. Internet access and the free-market has had tremendous success over the last 30-years.
* You want Internet like electric in which you pay per bandwidth used? Right now most, not all, providers offers unlimited data. I know of no regulated electric company that does that.
2) “Everything in their power to serve all equally and to the best ability, not pick and choose”. Respectfully, I think you misunderstand the components of Net Neutrality (at least in its current form). There is no requirement to offer services to everyone. It is a nice thought, but it is not part of Net Neutrality.
3) “Public service need to have oversight and be forced to serve the people not their bottom dollar”. I don’t necessarily agree with your wording, but I get your point. However, the FCC, and other agencies, still have currently a LOT of oversight on ISPs. (Public right-of-ways, frequency utilization, marketing wording and claims, spectrum interference, etc). I am not saying you meant to imply there is no oversight, but there is already plenty of oversight.
Net Neutrality just limits what provides can do. Limits potential new products. Makes it harder for smaller providers to compete and places hurdles on new entrants.
Last edited:
