After 2.6 million comments supporting Net Neutrality... the FCC continues to push forward.

[heyitsmeallen]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/24/15682240/fcc-net-neutrality-proposal-sees-few-changes

This shits a complete joke. The FCC was flooded with comments about their proposal to Roll Back Net Neutrality laws. They are claiming they were DDoS and are claiming most of the comments were from bots but they refuse to release any proof of the DDoS. Now they "revised" their proposal and the revision actually gives ISP even more power. 

[SleepingTitan]

Comcast and the big conglomerates want a piece of that Google Facebook pie in ad rev & mktg dollars. They see people pulling the plug and need to leverage their customer base for the future. 

[Carpy]

2 hours ago, Titansgoodluckcharm said:

One thing a lot of Americans forget is that we're at the top.

 

All we can do is fall and most haven't seen what the rest of the world is like.

At the top of what?  The only list that the USA is at the top of is for defence spending.

For quality of life for their citizens, they barely crack the top 20 in any credible list.

[nine]

IMO, the whole net neutrality subject is a bit fuzzier than it would appear on the surface.  

Critics obviously point at the Big Brother ramifications if net neutrality is stricken down...and that's obviously a legitimate concern.  Anytime a bunch of big corporations are behind something, you know they're doing so only for the sake of their own bottom line, consumers be  damned.

But there are also a number of benefits offered to consumers and customers that would not be possible if absolute net neutrality was enforced.

For example...just last week, an acquaintance was telling me about his  new AT&T wireless plan that gives him a certain amount of data each month...but he can watch his DirecTV app much as he wants and that data doesn't count toward his usage cap....which is a great deal.  But it's also an example of a provider showing preferential treatment to traffic from another provider...which violates the most basic premise of net neutrality.  

In that situation, absolute net neutrality would be a losing proposition for both the customer and for the provider....the customer loses a valuable service that offers unmetered data, and the provider loses the potential new customers that would sign up for such an offer.

Of course, the solution lies somewhere in between.  IMO, providers should be allowed to dictate how they want to manage traffic on their own networks that they build and maintain, especially when it provides added benefit or value for their customers.

But we also know that corporations  are always going to squeeze every bit of revenue possible from their customers...and if they find an opportunity to turn a buck via a couple unpublicized backdoor deals, they're gonna take it.   They cannot be trusted to always have their customers' best interests at heart....there has to be a system of checks and balances in place to keep them at least somewhat  honest and at least some of their cards on the table.

It's a slippery slope for sure.   There are legitimate arguments on both sides...and neither side seems particularly inclined to make any concessions.  It's unfortunate that it's being left up the government to sort it all out;   that only guarantees that the end result will leave all parties equally disappointed.

[chef]

1 minute ago, Titansgoodluckcharm said:

That's what I'm referencing.

 

It's bad now but we're not at 3rd world levels yet. We could permanently fuck our economy in the next 10 years if we're not careful. Tech is gonna hit hard and we already don't have enough for our population. Start just giving people money you run into other problems.

 

I agree with ya though that all of our "wealth" hasn't translated into a better quality of living. 

There is no place in the world where wealth is evenly distributed (nor should it be IMO), but when you've built as much of a pinched pyramid as we have over the last 30 years where the top is so incredibly high yet the median height in wealth/income/SOL so far below what would be the natural 1/2 way point, and then a bottom base so very wide, the true average of quality of life and such is not going to look all that great compared to less dramatic distributions.  With a significant % of the countries with the least income inequality being in Scandinavia or northern/central Europe, it's no surprise that you tend to see Swiss and German cities fill highest quality of living surveys year after years (often with NZ, Aus and sometimes Canada).

 

At the heart of all of this as always is education and motivation.  We have tons of great jobs available in this country and cannot produce enough skilled people to fill them.  We're in the middle of a 40 year shift from when Enough (education) was just enough to keep you comfortable, meaning you could do fine just by getting by in school, and then punching a clock to work at the factory, to drive that truck, show up at the store.  Jobs where you had to be just smart enough to do robotic work were already disappearing as good paying options before literally become jobs for robots.  

 

I'm not sure what the future looks like for us in the US right now.  But I feel you'll either be on the boat or drowning in the ocean.  You either have a skill set worth paying for.  Or perhaps the personal drive to engage in what might often be service related businesses that will continue to thrive (a friend of mine out here -  chef by trade - has started up a cleaning company for homes and cars and is raking it in).  Or else you're left behind watching the gap grow.  We're not Haiti, Afghanistan or Mozambique obviously, things are still pretty awesome by comparison to most in the world. It's just that whole We're #1 thing is going to keep fading further and further as a reality as unless we hit the reset button.

 

Education and motivation.

 

[Starkiller]

25 minutes ago, nine said:

But there are also a number of benefits offered to consumers and customers that would not be possible if absolute net neutrality was enforced.

For example...just last week, an acquaintance was telling me about his  new AT&T wireless plan that gives him a certain amount of data each month...but he can watch his DirecTV app much as he wants and that data doesn't count toward his usage cap....which is a great deal.  But it's also an example of a provider showing preferential treatment to traffic from another provider...which violates the most basic premise of net neutrality.  

In that situation, absolute net neutrality would be a losing proposition for both the customer and for the provider....the customer loses a valuable service that offers unmetered data, and the provider loses the potential new customers that would sign up for such an offer.

That's a situation where on the surface it seems good for the consumer but it isn't in reality. That's anti-competitive behavior, plain and simple. You have AT&T giving their own service an advantage over all other streaming alternatives. All it does is hurt 3rd party competitors. The best thing for consumers is for there to be competition.

Net neutrality was a big win for consumers as well as for most internet based companies. Gutting it is only a win for ISPs.

[titanruss]

12 hours ago, nine said:

IMO, the whole net neutrality subject is a bit fuzzier than it would appear on the surface.  

Critics obviously point at the Big Brother ramifications if net neutrality is stricken down...and that's obviously a legitimate concern.  Anytime a bunch of big corporations are behind something, you know they're doing so only for the sake of their own bottom line, consumers be  damned.

But there are also a number of benefits offered to consumers and customers that would not be possible if absolute net neutrality was enforced.

For example...just last week, an acquaintance was telling me about his  new AT&T wireless plan that gives him a certain amount of data each month...but he can watch his DirecTV app much as he wants and that data doesn't count toward his usage cap....which is a great deal.  But it's also an example of a provider showing preferential treatment to traffic from another provider...which violates the most basic premise of net neutrality.  

In that situation, absolute net neutrality would be a losing proposition for both the customer and for the provider....the customer loses a valuable service that offers unmetered data, and the provider loses the potential new customers that would sign up for such an offer.

Of course, the solution lies somewhere in between.  IMO, providers should be allowed to dictate how they want to manage traffic on their own networks that they build and maintain, especially when it provides added benefit or value for their customers.

But we also know that corporations  are always going to squeeze every bit of revenue possible from their customers...and if they find an opportunity to turn a buck via a couple unpublicized backdoor deals, they're gonna take it.   They cannot be trusted to always have their customers' best interests at heart....there has to be a system of checks and balances in place to keep them at least somewhat  honest and at least some of their cards on the table.

It's a slippery slope for sure.   There are legitimate arguments on both sides...and neither side seems particularly inclined to make any concessions.  It's unfortunate that it's being left up the government to sort it all out;   that only guarantees that the end result will leave all parties equally disappointed.

data caps at the small customer level are shit. they are not necessary.... data caps should be gone by now like text messaging costs. 95% of countries in the free world dont use them. they are money grabs. with modern tech they  shouldnt matter... if your area doesnt have modern tech.. its because they dont have competition and therefore no reason to update. 

they bring those service AT A LOWER SPEED. you stream shit quality... you want better? you pay more. 

they could do this for free. really.. they wouldnt lose money. they are just acting like you are getting something special. now you and your friend think its such a great fucking deal... it isnt. they are using you to make you believe its necesary in order for progress. 

 

its about controlling the content you see. they are pipelines and they want to control if shit or vodka flows through them when both were flowing through just fine. they want to be toll booths. once they become toll booths they will not hold back and never have before. they will dictate the price of every service. 

 

there's a guy who recently posted "comcastroturf.com" that shows wether the FCC had anti net neutrality comments put on their site in your name (actually by bots and largely thought to be by the telecoms) ... comcast sent a cease and desist. in reality because of this giant fucking of the people by the FCC, they have a legal case now to block that website regardless of going the court/lawyer route.

let me say this..... IT DOES NOT MATTER that comcast is in the name. there are VERY clear laws in place that state that domain names cannot be copywrite/trademarked unless you own them. I could start Disneysucks.com or Cumcast.com and there's nothing that can be done. 

they are already testing the waters and limits of a bill passed 1 day before. 

 

[Starkiller]

I'm ok with data caps to some extent. If it's there to prevent someone from running a home server and having huge traffic then that's fine. 

I'm even ok with ISPs charging different amounts based on how big a data cap you need. But you have to then give a discount to gramma who doesn't do streaming video or online gaming. Right now it's largely just there to gouge cable cutters. 

[oldschool]

13 hours ago, nine said:

IMO, the whole net neutrality subject is a bit fuzzier than it would appear on the surface.  

Critics obviously point at the Big Brother ramifications if net neutrality is stricken down...and that's obviously a legitimate concern.  Anytime a bunch of big corporations are behind something, you know they're doing so only for the sake of their own bottom line, consumers be  damned.

But there are also a number of benefits offered to consumers and customers that would not be possible if absolute net neutrality was enforced.

For example...just last week, an acquaintance was telling me about his  new AT&T wireless plan that gives him a certain amount of data each month...but he can watch his DirecTV app much as he wants and that data doesn't count toward his usage cap....which is a great deal.  But it's also an example of a provider showing preferential treatment to traffic from another provider...which violates the most basic premise of net neutrality.  

In that situation, absolute net neutrality would be a losing proposition for both the customer and for the provider....the customer loses a valuable service that offers unmetered data, and the provider loses the potential new customers that would sign up for such an offer.

Of course, the solution lies somewhere in between.  IMO, providers should be allowed to dictate how they want to manage traffic on their own networks that they build and maintain, especially when it provides added benefit or value for their customers.

But we also know that corporations  are always going to squeeze every bit of revenue possible from their customers...and if they find an opportunity to turn a buck via a couple unpublicized backdoor deals, they're gonna take it.   They cannot be trusted to always have their customers' best interests at heart....there has to be a system of checks and balances in place to keep them at least somewhat  honest and at least some of their cards on the table.

It's a slippery slope for sure.   There are legitimate arguments on both sides...and neither side seems particularly inclined to make any concessions.  It's unfortunate that it's being left up the government to sort it all out;   that only guarantees that the end result will leave all parties equally disappointed.

You are aware AT&T owns DirecTV right? Your example is poor. even if it weren't you are actually highlighting the whole problem.

[Mythos27]

44 minutes ago, oldschool said:

You are aware AT&T owns DirecTV right? Your example is poor. even if it weren't you are actually highlighting the whole problem.

You're in this industry right? Can you give us a run down of the pro and cons and what's a stake here?

[mmmmmbeeer]

1 hour ago, titanruss said:

data caps at the small customer level are shit. they are not necessary.... data caps should be gone by now like text messaging costs. 95% of countries in the free world dont use them. they are money grabs. with modern tech they  shouldnt matter... if your area doesnt have modern tech.. its because they dont have competition and therefore no reason to update. 

they bring those service AT A LOWER SPEED. you stream shit quality... you want better? you pay more. 

they could do this for free. really.. they wouldnt lose money. they are just acting like you are getting something special. now you and your friend think its such a great fucking deal... it isnt. they are using you to make you believe its necesary in order for progress. 

 

 

Soooo much this.  I work in the industry for a backbone provider.  The leaps and bounds of data delivery over the last 15 years is absolutely insane.  It used to be that a T3 connection (45MB) was HUGE, and we're talking huge for business/enterprise customers.  Then came 2.5GB pipes, then 10GB pipes, 40GB pipes, and now 100GB pipes to customers are ubiquitous and relatively affordable.  I work on equipment that transfers up to 8TB per second on a single fiber pair on the backbone.  Just over 20 years ago, the most that same fiber pair was capable of carrying was 2.5GB.

Data is cheap, fiber is plentiful, and we, as consumers, are getting robbed.  The idea that we were paying for text messaging just a few short years ago, plain text messaging that literally used basically 0 data, was a freaking joke.  The same joke has continued into today by way of limited, and expensive, data plans for phones and home internet.  And now we want to weaken net neutrality rules to give them more power over consumer content and price?  

The internet has been a boon to the world's economy and any movement to further stifle competition and content will discourage the economic growth we've enjoyed.  Weakening Net Neutrality is akin to what we saw when a Walmart moved into small towns across the country....entrepreneurship dropped in those communities, businesses shuttered, and these markets became flooded with cheap Chinese shit from China.  

Gotta love the Republicans.  Free market capitalism, my ass.

[9 Nines]

15 hours ago, Starkiller said:

That's a situation where on the surface it seems good for the consumer but it isn't in reality. That's anti-competitive behavior, plain and simple. You have AT&T giving their own service an advantage over all other streaming alternatives. All it does is hurt 3rd party competitors. The best thing for consumers is for there to be competition.

Net neutrality was a big win for consumers as well as for most internet based companies. Gutting it is only a win for ISPs.

They will also throttle it depending on your usage. So if you watch more than they want to allow, it will be a lag-fest the rest of the way.  

[Starkiller]

9 minutes ago, 9 Nines said:

They will also throttle it depending on your usage. So if you watch more than they want to allow, it will be a lag-fest the rest of the way.  

This will be a big deal for gamers. Comcast, AT&T, etc will probably charge them extra so they can keep the same speed they have today.

[9 Nines]

16 hours ago, Titansgoodluckcharm said:

Start just giving people money you run into other problems.

Money and goods/services are too different things.  Money can never run out - it is nothing but 1s and 0s at this point.  The ability to produce more goods and services is the only constraint. We are not near that point. In fact, the economic problems of the last several decades has been that we are not near that point, therefore with no production constraints, wages, sourced from supply of labor, have been stagnant. Therefore, if we produced more and move to that the point of constraint, then wages would rise.  In other words, we would have more goods and services than now, and labor would take a larger percentage of that bigger pie, breaking the trend of the rich gaining a large slice but again the pie would be bigger, so both groups would have bigger pieces than now. 

The above could be done by not giving to people, as in individuals (although we should have safety nets), but by putting more goods and services into the public domain (cutting edge infrastructure, mass parks, money for public arts, events, and performances, research into space travel, medicine, science etc.) We all would be able to use those assets and the demand to create them would push us toward a production constraint which would increase wages overall which would also lead to individuals having personal assets too.

Th rich seem to want the status quo of production below our means, a situation where they get, and everyone else get a smaller slice, but their slices are relative bigger than ours versus if we were all getting bigger slices than now.  In other words, the rich want a smaller pie from which they get a larger percentage than a bigger pie, where they get a smaller percentage even if their slice is bigger than it now - they want to be richer even at the expense of having less. 

[mmmmmbeeer]

15 minutes ago, 9 Nines said:

Money and goods/services are too different things.  Money can never run out - it is nothing but 1s and 0s at this point.  The ability to produce more goods and services is the only constraint. We are not near that point. In fact, the economic problems of the last several decades has been that we are not near that point, therefore with no production constraints, wages, sourced from supply of labor, have been stagnant. Therefore, if we produced more and move to that the point of constraint, then wages would rise.  In other words, we would have more goods and services than now, and labor would take a larger percentage of that bigger pie, breaking the trend of the rich gaining a large slice but again the pie would be bigger, so both groups would have bigger pieces than now. 

The above could be done by not giving to people, as in individuals (although we should have safety nets), but by putting more goods and services into the public domain (cutting edge infrastructure, mass parks, money for public arts, events, and performances, research into space travel, medicine, science etc.) 

Th rich seem to want the status quo of production below our means, a situation where they get, and everyone else get a smaller slice, but their slices are relative bigger than ours versus bigger slices but relative closer in size to our in an economy of full production. 

I like a lot of what you're saying here but have to disagree, to an extent.  U.S. work force productivity from 1980 to present day (minus some blips along the way) has been way up and yet wages have remained relatively stagnant...in fact, depending on how you look at the numbers, you could say that real wages and quality of life have dropped over this period when accounting for inflation, an increased household reliance on two incomes, loss of company-funded pension and retirement plans, increased medical costs, and de-unionization efforts coupled with right-to-work legislation.

My point is, I think straight up greed is a larger driver than lack of production/productivity.  At every turn, it's the working class bearing the brunt of the pain inflicted by economic policies aimed at enriching the wealthiest, securing advantageous markets for existing corporations, and tax policies/loopholes bought and paid for by the very people benefiting from those rules.  

The moment businesses stopped cherishing and embracing long-term growth and instead focused on short-term wins via quarterly earnings to satisfy stockholders, it all went to shit.