A net neutrality screed..

Post #388,969 by Ashton 4/27/14 1:55:38 AM Reply	A net neutrality screed.. (Some debatable points here, but the issue hasn't been dissected Here lately.. and this ruling seems a Biggie--whether or not BHO can/will self-correct ... soon enough.) Is BHO being flat-out obtuse, hiring a shill from the place to be regulated.. or worse.. or could there possibly be some redeeming strategy (if there is, it goes Zoooom.) http://www.dailykos....ocratic-President
Post #388,971 by Another Scott 4/27/14 8:07:29 AM Reply	Meh. Wheeler's counterpoint. The FCC's proposed rules are in response to a Court of Appeals ruling. Their hands were tied. http://www.fcc.gov/b...en-internet-rules Setting the Record Straight on the FCCÂs Open Internet Rules by: Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman April 24, 2014 There has been a great deal of misinformation that has recently surfaced regarding the draft Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we will today circulate to the Commission. The Notice proposes the reinstatement of the Open Internet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010 and subsequently remanded by the D.C. Circuit. The Notice does not change the underlying goals of transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users established by the 2010 Rule. The Notice does follow the roadmap established by the Court as to how to enforce rules of the road that protect an Open Internet and asks for further comments on the approach. It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year. To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted. Incorrect accounts have reported that the earlier policies of the Commission have been abandoned. Two points are relevant here: The Court of Appeals made it clear that the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it were found to not be Âcommercially reasonable.Â Acting within the constraints of the CourtÂs decision, the Notice will propose rules that establish a high bar for what is Âcommercially reasonable.Â In addition, the Notice will seek ideas on other approaches to achieve this important goal consistent with the CourtÂs decision. The Notice will also observe that the Commission believes it has the authority under Supreme Court precedent to identify behavior that is flatly illegal. It should be noted that even Title II regulation (which many have sought and which remains a clear alternative) only bans Âunjust and unreasonable discrimination.Â The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded. That is exactly what the Âcommercially unreasonableÂ test will protect against: harm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity. To be clear, this is what the Notice will propose: That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network; That no legal content may be blocked; and That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,983 by Ashton 4/27/14 8:06:44 PM Reply	Thanks; reasonable/al punte.. {sigh} ... relief-grade. In fact, damn-near startlingly Frank(!) in acknowledging an expectation of bloviations of all dimensions (unless my glasses are rose-colored.) Hope-inspiring. As so frequently, your Relevance-filter confounds the {intentional-??] Noise-figure of most Googlish searches, the meat submerged behind all the Paid-for-positioning as benefits Google, Inc. When I searched for "interpretations, conclusions" via various phrases... well, you know. (Hah! try and Regulate-out THAT Capitalist Profit-koan, without precipitating armed mercenaries heading for 'Chambers' everywhere.) ..but then I never hoped That high, anyway :-/
Post #388,992 by scoenye 4/28/14 8:09:22 AM Reply	Comcast and "commercially unreasonable" This is the company that insists you use their modems for business connections and then supplies something that can not handle the load. You can then either reboot the things every 24 hours (if you're lucky), or... pay them another $15/month for a static IP so you can then install your own routing kit. And given that the corporates have a sacred duty to extract as much money as possible, I can not see the current USSC interpreting "unreasonable" in any way other than not doing something to rake in extra cash. No matter what the FCC intends it to mean, in and of itself, the term has no clear meaning.
Post #388,993 by Another Scott 4/28/14 9:37:52 AM Reply	Devil's in the details. Of course the FCC rules are less than optimal. But given the environment they live in, it's not surprising that they couldn't do more even if they wanted to. I expected the FCC chair to attempt to justify their rules. What I didn't know, was that apparently the "common carrier" language isn't the silver bullet that many advocates claim. True? Dunno. But at least he addressed it. Unfortunately, apparently the only thing that is going to get the US better internet service is outside-the-box competition with things like Google Fiber (and WiFi). http://www.eweek.com...fiber-cities.html Government efforts, like pushing broadband to low-income areas and schools, is likely to only help in the margins. Let's hope they get the details right and that the courts stop chipping away at the FCC's ability to regulate. And isn't the FCC simply recognizing the state of affairs in the industry? E.g. Box's cited example of Google putting servers at ISPs. Someone is paying for that (and if the ISP isn't then they're effectively getting a subsidy from Google). Altavista likely didn't, and who knows if that effective "two-tiered" arrangement help speed AV's demise. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #389,010 by scoenye 4/29/14 8:10:09 AM Reply	I do realize they got their legs cut out from under them But I fear that "commercially unreasonable" can only be interpreted one way when challenged outside the FCC: anything that does not make the operator money. This, to me, goes quite a bit beyond the current state of affairs. This is "have at it". Netflix has its own CDN with servers at the ISP just like Google. Yet they were just held for ransom by both Comcast and Verizon. Maybe it does take your own fiber net to sidestep the shakedown, but Google is the only one with deep enough pockets to do that. It will be interesting to see if Netflix now goes to ISP dependent tiered pricing.
Post #389,017 by Ashton 4/29/14 5:08:29 PM Reply	Is this the spot for my Constitutional Convention screed? If not (quite.. yet) er, Never mind. Most people wouldn't, we see. (I expect we're all waiting for people to start disrobing at Bus Stops.. or something.) All those (important) Details are the very-means via which EVERY Corporation (!=a person): perpetually Games the sub-system (here) as, overall: The System. We're spinning wheels (within-wheels(within-wheels.))) in all these 'Be Patient' discussions. Aren't we? The only "Hope" I can see is, what appears to be a growing consensus that, the Plutocrats >HAVE< Gotcha-exceptions to All the Rules we attribute to that ancient-Constitution-'thing'. And if that is So? [Perception is All] then, One cannot escape the forced-conclusion: (least-BLOODY) A Constitutional Convention, whose delegates are elected by Mondo-supervised processes in which every Voter has Just-One vote for his/her Candidate to that Convention. A real Plebiscite! It may do its work via many Amendements.. or more radically [the very ROOT of 'radical']. Unprecedented as this is, it is on the same SCALE as: the Existential Problems we are NOT-dealing with/as cannot even BE 'dealt-with' ... at this rate, over a Century? (Buried under the Next ones.) (Of course, that brave stab doesn't guarantee that enough people can?/shall? embrace the Reformation; our record is Clear on our obtuseness: Civil War 1 still inflames multitudes.) But at very least, it will be Honest to say, 'We' Tried. More creeping gradualism in an era when new Problems arise exponentially--is, what's the word? 'DOOM' isn't even hyperbole. We are "there.. there.. now.."-ing our bloviating-Selves, unto-soporific-Death, ImsHO; I am unanimous in that 'ROOT solution'. It seems the only direction as might ever confront today's awful-Fact of mass corruption, provably-rife. 'Minority-view'? Surely.. but IS it Growing?? Because: any of the conventional Rx's involving any action whatsoever--promise bloody/endless/eventual demagogue-directed chaos. And doubtless--given the nano-speed of Int'l Banking-overlords über Alles?--just another 'DOOM'-variant. The Earth orbiting the Sun was also a minority-opinion, one lethal if expressed around any Robed-one. 'We' (!) have forced an Extreme next-future by our pewling complaisance, decade after decade; our habit of highlighting the corruptions all about--via satire, as pseudo- 'relief?'/but little Action-against. ie No Work, just giggles. Hey! ... the other night I 'Rescued' a turtle; sublime. How many Muricans have 'rescued' Anything, in say, the last year? Mainly seen: the aged-poor doing that; nobody else can spare the Time? Today, they're looking for Cervantes' body, under a church floor--via metal? detectors. Seemed appropriate, as we all tilt at windmills--'vicariously' is the core of a liff! If we can't manage to do anything, at very least, I Demand: that the Ostrich replace the Eagle as National Bird. On the Barricades: at least you can expect that the woman next to you might have read It Can't Happen Here in the original-English, noticed the truthiness and Knows what she's Fighting ~~for~~ Against--without a Google-map.
Post #389,036 by Another Scott 4/30/14 8:09:19 AM Reply	Sure, let's see it. :-) But are you sure you want to go down that route? Given the way people like the Paulites have found ways to twist the rules and increase their power far in excess of their actual numbers? A constitutional convention sounds great in the abstract, in some ways, but too many people have hidden agendas and can develop ways to twist the clear meaning of words to get what they want. Look at the 2nd Amendment. Look at the 1st Amendment, even. :-/ The Constitutional Convention that gave us that marvelous document had secret deliberations and votes - http://en.wikipedia....on_(United_States) That wouldn't go over too well these days with too many people. You know some people would be pushing for "Christian Nation" and "no anchor babies" and "every sperm is sacred" and "stand your ground" and "corporations are people" and similar nonsense. There would be pressure to "compromise" on such things. By all means, let's try to change things for the better. But let's not forget that demographic change among the voters is likely necessary for substantial progress to be made. http://www.motherjon...end-be-pretty-old (Here's hoping that we new oldsters don't end up repeating the mistakes of our predecessors.) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #389,051 by Ashton 4/30/14 8:37:39 PM 4/30/14 8:53:18 PM Reply	'When the Gen Xers pass 50, they're going to start attending megachurches too." (Sure glad that 'projection' Is debatable; the speed-of-Aha!s, catalyzed by usual mob homogenization ... can be supersonic.) So for that disaster to occur, the Plutocrats would have to successfully emasculate all e- means of communication (and soon.) But that's just grasping for straws.. were I correct on this point: it means that Adulthood would have to become common, yes. BUT ALSO: in-time for arresting the next-Quarter mindsets of all the corporate hierarchies and their Representatives across politics, from local to --> the [Private} Prez lottery. The planet is clearly un'interested' in suspending thermodynamics laws, while its most destructive species attempts to grow-itself-up. [via Darwin OR Gaea models.] (And until a majority of perps Can discern BS from truthiness, are able to debate via Reasoning: then all those robot-lobbyists are bound to prevail over all those unorganized robotic ciphers.) tl;dr IF a plebiscite fails (or proves impossible even to create) and it takes >5? 15? 25? years to accomplish sane Reform (with or without plebiscite) THEN that's GAME OVER, barring the miraculous (and what kinda God/spirit-of n-Dimensions would waste one of those on demonstrably unTeachables?) Meanwhile.. foreseeing bizness-as-usual, I shall hew towards the proper mien of a savvy Replicant, whose allotted-ticks are preprogrammed in DNA-ROM. (And the Creating-corporation can't reset the timer; one of us just squished-in the face of its its CIEIO. Oh. Well.) It will not be a pretty Sight, the decimation.. Centization?? ... as countless mammals overheat, under-eat and make fertilizer for the new greenery. That which could make way for another try at opposed-thumb sentience, (working an environment already denuded of readily available high-grade ores, minerals, so much Else already destroyed.) Now mere entropy-fodder. Earth Abides demonstrates a response to a demi-version of one sort of 'disappearance of most homo-saps', but its cause was a McGuffin. Bring on the New novellas! as Rome burns again. Who Knew?! as we pored over exciting dystopian operettas, that--we were cramming for an incipient Final exam! Ed:oTpy Old man ... it's not so hard ... t o ... d i e. --Lord Byron; Manfred, to a pesky priest. Edited by Ashton April 30, 2014, 08:53:18 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #389,055 by Another Scott 4/30/14 10:39:04 PM Reply	We can see the trends, but nobody knows the future. Things can change very quickly when the right people are in office. Don't give up the fight. Cheers, Scot.t
Post #396,212 by Another Scott 11/10/14 7:44:45 PM Reply	Obama's video today... http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/10/3590728/obama-fcc-net-neutrality/ In the clearest message to date, President Barack Obama called on the U.S. Federal Communications on Monday to do everything in its power to keep the Internet free and open for everyone by preserving net neutrality. The FCC “should make it clear that whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, Internet providers (ISPs) have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website,” Obama said in the two-minute video posted to The White House’s YouTube page Monday. “The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone,” Obama said in a statement. “I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.” Under The White House plan, ISPs wouldn’t be allowed to block or throttle legal content. Paid prioritization, or fast and slow lane access, would be forbidden so web services can be accessed without paying an extra fee. Obama also called for the FCC to classify the Internet as a utility, because it has become indispensable in everyday life. [...] Note FCC Chair Wheeler's comment at the end. I'm surprised that Obama came out so strongly on this right now. Sure, he's been for Net Neutrality before, but he seems to be pushing the FCC to get this right rather than coasting. I wonder if it's a sign of what's coming. Maybe Mike and Hugh and some of the rest of us will be pleasantly surprised. Or maybe not. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #396,218 by boxley 11/10/14 8:41:36 PM Reply	since voice is switching to voip vs copper that indeed needs to be common carrier regulation, the rest not so much. Why should your porn buffer and break up my 911 call? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,219 by Another Scott 11/10/14 8:50:21 PM Reply	RareSanity has the answer. Balloon-Juice: RareSanity says: November 10, 2014 at 12:18 pm @BR: But CDNs pay Tier 1s for bandwidth to deliver content, they are not the bad actors in this situation. Akamai pays Level 3 to deliver content on behalf of it’s clients (let’s say Netflix). Level 3 then has a peering agreement with Comcast at the Tier 1 level to deliver that content…which is being requested by Comcast’s customers. This traffic has been steadily increasing over the years, so Comcast…as a bad faith actor…say, “Hey! You’re sending us way more stuff then we’re sending you, so this isn’t really a ‘peer” relationship. You should pay us to add additional ports at data centers for this traffic!” Level 3, as a good faith actor says, “Hey Comcast! This traffic is headed for YOUR CUSTOMERS that bought service from you! You are not being used as a transit point, YOU ARE THE ENDPOINT! Add more ports at the data center so we can deliver the content YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE REQUESTING!” This whole thing would be different if Comcast (or Verizon) were just a waypoint for this massive increase in data while it was headed somewhere else, then I could see their argument. But that’s not what’s going on here, they are trying to double dip by getting paid by their customers for the access to Netflix content, then they want to charge Netflix for the access to their customers. Not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. They are trying to get paid for something they have no business getting paid for. (Lightbulb!) Exactly. Cheers, Scott.
Post #396,220 by boxley 11/10/14 9:29:41 PM Reply	if google pays to have peered servers inside the isp datacenter why should netflix get the same for free? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,223 by Another Scott 11/10/14 11:09:50 PM Reply	Maybe because it's not the same? Are Comcast and Cox and the rest of the large ISPs making noises about getting in the Search business? Not when I last checked. http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/05/22/google-fiber-says-wont-make-money-peering-colocation-agreements-netflix-others/ Much has been made of Netflix’s paid peering agreements with Comcast and Verizon. Peering, which is the process of directly hooking up the networks of two different providers, has been a longstanding practice in the industry. However, when a company like Comcast competes with Netflix, having to reach a paid agreement in order to restore degraded service feels more like a strong arm tactic than a friendly business cooperation. Google, for its part, asserts that it doesn’t make money from peering or colocation agreements. Fiber’s terms of service also state that the company will “fairly allocate” bandwidth without regard to subscribers’ online activities, meaning that other companies can’t pay for a fast-lane to prioritize their traffic. That means that Google can’t play favorites and keep YouTube running for customers while slowing down Netflix and other non-Google services. While Google Fiber has the benefit of already being fast, it has consistently been the provider with the best performance in the US for Netflix. The colocation agreement helps achieve that by reducing the distance that a request has to go from Google’s network to Netflix’s servers, while also reducing costs for both parties. (Emphasis added.) How about that. Everyone benefits when things are done sensibly. Yet Verizon and Comcast want to be able to throttle things (kill Net Neutrality) so that their offerings can have an advantage. Imagine that. :-/ FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #396,224 by boxley 11/10/14 11:28:13 PM Reply	so the post office should deliver amazon products free to the end users? netflix charges a fee to users who want their content, yet they want to share no costs associated with delivering that content, even tho that content is a rising increasing cos of doing business as an isp. You are trying to confuse content provider with an isp. That is a job for the feds to declare monopolistic practices and insist that content from Comcast be segregated into a different business entity than the ISP. But like the wussies of yore wouldn't force Microsoft to put a chinese wall between OS and applications. That type of regulation I would support. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,225 by Another Scott 11/11/14 12:21:39 AM Reply	Eh? I wanted MS to be broken up. E.g. http://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/148167/ As RareSanity pointed out up-thread, Netflix pays for its pipes like everyone else. Comcast wants Netflix to pay more so that its customers will find Netflix to be too expensive compared to its own offerings (which obviously will also be bandwidth intensive). If Google Fiber can find a Net Neutral way of doing colocation with Netflix (which obviously competes with Google Play movies and YouTube), then Verizon and Comcast can as well. I've thought for a long time, as you know, that ISPs shouldn't be in the content business. There are too many temptations to use ownership of the pipes as a way to constrain competition. ISPs should be boring utilities. If they want to be in the movie business, spin it off and be a movie business. There are some later comments on that Balloon-Juice thread, by gene108 (sp?) I think, that one has to be careful about regulating ISPs as a utility because we don't want to lock-in a system that doesn't improve or that crumbles due to lack of investment. It would have to be done carefully. But it's not an unsolvable problem, and it's a better system than letting Comcast and Verizon put up toll-booths for content that they want to earn extra on. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #396,235 by boxley 11/11/14 11:26:15 AM Reply	didn't mean you, meant the justice department back in the day Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,230 by mmoffitt 11/11/14 10:08:16 AM Reply	Re: that content from Comcast be segregated into a different business entity than the ISP. Agree full stop. However, a business based upon providing conventional cable tv content exclusively probably has a very short shelf life. Once content providers other than HBO decide to market their content directly to consumers, it's game over for cable tv.
Post #396,234 by boxley 11/11/14 11:25:33 AM Reply	cable rides the same packets as the intarweb the docsis cable boxes separate the streams for different devices. The cable portion would still deliver local sports with a small profit margin to be made. The ISP would still deliver content via the same set of wires. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,239 by mmoffitt 11/11/14 1:05:25 PM Reply	Hmmmm. What I was trying to say is that if I don't need Comcast/MediaCom/TWC/etc. to "subscribe" to the channels I want to see (like HBO's decision this year) and as long as local foo is accessible via OTA, why would I need the Cable TV business at all? I could achieve the long time dream of subscribing to only those channels I wanted. Obviously, I'd still need the ISP business, but why would I need the Cable TV business? From my POV, and I could be wrong, while I'd love to see content providers split from service providers, in the case of cable companies, if you force them to split the ISP/Cable TV into two entities, one will thrive and the other will perish. Having said all that, I cut my "cable" bill by more than half by dropping the TV subscription. We've streamed exclusively for about 2.5 years now and I haven't missed a thing - despite living far enough out in the boonies that receiving OTA transmissions now would require a rooftop antenna. Here, I get to jab the whole "digital is better" myth. Back in the bad old days of analog, we got 5 channels with indoor antennas and 4 of them were always crystal clear. We've always had cable, but my neighbor was over watching a locally broadcast game through my cable subscription and commented, "God, my picture at home is better than that and all I have is bunny ears." So, we went to his house and I'll be damned if he wasn't right. Exact same TV's, too.
Post #396,240 by Another Scott 11/11/14 1:32:55 PM Reply	It might vary with the cable company. My folks in Winston-Salem have TW. It seems to me that their channels are much more compressed than ours (Cox in NoVA) - it's very common to see blocky stuff, especially with fast action. But lots of commercials, and the BBC channel, are much more compressed with Cox than some of the big networks. There's a whole mess of stuff about the big cable companies that is as transparent as depleted uranium. Similarly, the call quality on cell phones varies a lot and some of it must be due to the way the companies run their networks. Lots of luck finding anything more than plans (HDVoice! VOIP!! Coming soon!!!1) so that one could make an informed decision... :-/ À la carte channel subscriptions sounds like a good idea (the NFL and the NCAA would hate it, of course), but I wonder what would happen to things like local news. I imagine it would make it worse, as hard as that might be to believe... But maybe it would make things like "community access" actually thrive. Who knows. Cheers, Scott. ("Eh? What did you say? Try again?")
Post #396,241 by boxley 11/11/14 1:54:02 PM Reply	if I and the wife were not sports junkies I would cut the cable although now living in a flat country just 80 miles from nola I may invest a buck to see what ota I can get. Need to convince spouse that watching Duke football and basketball is off the table. No, on second thought.... Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,245 by mmoffitt 11/11/14 4:25:34 PM Reply	Understood. If it weren't for hockey streams, I'd be insane by now. ;0)
Post #396,250 by scoenye 11/11/14 6:00:04 PM Reply	You must not have Comcast then http://forums.comcast.com/t5/Billing/Internet-service-only-62-95-a-month-I-m-not-paying-that-Bye-Bye/td-p/1335081 From the 1st reply: The 48.95 price for Performance is the "With Cable" price. The 62.95 price for Performance is the "Without Cable" price. They'll clean you out one way or another and this is actually an improvement: when they borged our local cableco around ~2006, Comcast's take was that if you did not want cable, then you obviously had no need for high speed internet either and all you got was 1.5Mb/s (instead of the 6 we had before), for 150% of the old price.
Post #396,251 by boxley 11/11/14 9:10:07 PM Reply	I do at the other shop. Business basic, highspeed intarweb and phone cheap (or relatively cheap) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,279 by scoenye 11/12/14 6:14:21 PM Reply	Ah, that racket I babysit 7 of those lines. The modems they originally delivered ("improved experience" SMC 8014's) had the wonderful habit of locking out frequently used sites after a few days. The fix was to switch the modems to bridge mode and put a real router and DHCP server behind them. But the only way to accomplish that is ... pay Comcast $15/month extra for a a static IP.
Post #396,272 by mmoffitt 11/12/14 1:18:10 PM Reply	MediaCom always line item broadband for us. We've had them for years (only game in town). The sucked big time for a lot of years, I'd often get d/l speeds of 0.25 for my "up to 12 Meg" subscription. Happily that all changed over a year ago. But the bill was always 42.95/month (5.00 off each month because I used my own modem) and it still is but instead of unlimited, I pay 10.00 extra for each 50G above 250G I use in a month. The basic TV rate that we killed was around 60.00 a month.
Post #396,257 by static 11/12/14 3:09:15 AM Reply	"Digital Is Better". Unfortunately, sometimes that means better for the broadcaster, not the consumer. Wade. Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
Post #396,262 by drook 11/12/14 10:03:12 AM Reply	Sometimes? I think it's fair to say whatever changes a cable company (or telco, or other ISP) makes are always better for whoever is making the change. They're only ever better for the consumer by sheer accident. -- Drew
Post #396,282 by static 11/12/14 6:36:40 PM Reply	I meant more broadly. Digital OTA TV is better for the consumer in a few ways: smaller antennae, less interference, more channels. Wade. Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
Post #396,300 by mmoffitt 11/13/14 8:38:14 AM Reply	Except in cases like mine. Where it means fewer channels. ;0)
Post #396,227 by Ashton 11/11/14 12:50:41 AM Reply	While BHO's brief clip makes him a current White-hat.. does this "make it a Utility" phrase not look like a matter, about which we are certain to hear from the Ruling CIEIOs/their Congressional bond-serfs? This is where they Live: roulette on a fixed-wheel; they're now experts at social-engineering of the croupiers as well. I see strife. May the Admin not be out-classed in the legal dances. (They seemed to do OK with the first few Fines, even if a pittance compared to the perps' actual Haul. Still, not bad in an existing Corporatocracy, eh?)
Post #396,231 by mmoffitt 11/11/14 10:15:07 AM Reply	Agree. See, Scott, I can give the Devil his due. But why didn't he do this before the election? Just as with Single Payer (which had 60+% support among the People) he has had HUGE clubs with which to beat the heads of the ruling class. But time and time again he's refused to use them. My more cynical self believes he waited until both houses were securely in the Neo-fascists hands before he could make such a comment - ensuring that Net Neutrality would never occur and he could keep his monied elite happy (See Wheeler, for example).
Post #396,226 by pwhysall 11/11/14 12:47:22 AM 11/11/14 12:50:56 AM Reply	Bring on the clowns! Oh, wait, no need. Here's Ted Cruz. JTFC. I know our politicos are slimy duplicitious grasping chiselling shits who would sell their own children for a chance at power, but at least they're not a pack of raging fuckwits like a significant fraction of yours are. Edit: I a word out. Edited by pwhysall Nov. 11, 2014, 12:50:56 AM EST Expand All History
Post #396,315 by drook 11/13/14 2:11:49 PM Reply	Interesting view from a non-techie If ConEd or your local power utility said, "sorry, our electricity can't be used on Maytag appliances because they didn't pay a slotting fee," you'd be appropriately incensed. But when it happens to ideas, I fear the cost is even greater. Seth's blog. -- Drew
Post #396,318 by boxley 11/13/14 3:52:07 PM 11/13/14 3:53:13 PM Reply	how about con ed refusing to deliver your maytag for free? after all you paid for it at the store and it is going to use con ed electricity when it gets to your house Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep Edited by boxley Nov. 13, 2014, 03:53:13 PM EST Expand All History
Post #396,319 by malraux 11/13/14 4:49:59 PM Reply	False equivalency. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #396,320 by boxley 11/13/14 5:07:29 PM 11/13/14 5:08:00 PM Reply	make it a GE appliance then they sell electricity but not to you Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep Edited by boxley Nov. 13, 2014, 05:08:00 PM EST Expand All History
Post #396,323 by drook 11/13/14 7:54:57 PM Reply	Umm ... that's what he said -- Drew
Post #396,325 by boxley 11/13/14 8:54:53 PM Reply	netscape is a purchase that wants free delivery Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,329 by malraux 11/13/14 10:28:31 PM Reply	Er... I have Netflix. I pay my cable company for the bandwidth already, but now they want to double dip. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #396,335 by boxley 11/13/14 11:19:23 PM Reply	sort of, what regulation will end up doing pay by the byte on the consumer side. 5% of ISP customers consume most of the bandwidth. So we are all subsidizing heavy users. If the ISPs end up metering bits like a regulated electric company you will have the fee structure just to have a connection $30.00 used or not. Taxes $4.85 Tab for people who don't have a connection yet $1.25 every GB above 300 MGB $30.00 And the damn politicians will go allright then, that is fair. We all get hosed and the providers will make serious bank. So the next outcry will be open the lines! So billyjoebobISP.com wants to pay minimum dollar for the right to sell last mile access. Providers will say fuck upgrading or keeping the lights on. Services will degrade, our costs will go up and someone will say, we need some regulations to fix this. Rinse and repeat, race to the bottom Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #396,343 by drook 11/14/14 7:38:09 AM Reply	Compare us to the rest of the developed world ... we're already at the bottom -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!