Re: OT: keep the internet free

So you're saying that the FCC Commissioner didn't say it? Your argument is the typical leftist's "shoot the messenger". Are you sure you're not a Democrat?

e:

rity in such matters.

I'm not saying Pai didn't say it. (It wouldn't surprise me.) But Obama doesn't have a vote to cast in the upcoming Feb 26 Commissioner's Meeting where the application of Title-II to the Internet will be decided. So, to suggest that he's "taking unprecedented direct control over intern et changes" is absurd. Next thing you know, he'll be personally handing ou t MAC addresses!

To your point, though: It's clearly Obama policy (Open Access, Title-II, N et Neutrality, etc..). I'll grant you that - and no argument here.

But the FCC's has had a hard-on for common carriers before Obama was even b orn. It is a fantasy to think you can remove (or in this case, refuse to e rect) regulatory barriers and still keep a level playing field - something that frankly defines common carriage. It has never worked in the past, and there is no reason to beleive it ever will.

After visiting the link you provided, I actually found a pretty decent rebu ttal (from of all folks: Public Knowledge). I don't always agree with thei r FCC filings, BTW. And I'm not saying (yet), that I agree with everything they say at the link below. But, it does go point-by-point to discredit p ractically everything Commissioner Pai said in the Breitbart video you prov ided.

Take a look, and then let's re-group.

But either way, the FCC is almost certainly going to get sued again no matt er which way it votes. So, this isn't over just yet.

Well, firstly the customers whose net access was throttled during the shakedown (they knew things were slow, but didn't have enough clout to get their ISP to add capacity). Secondly, all competing service providers have to be wondering if capacity manipulation can be similarly monetized. Third, Netflix is now privileged, but their potential competition is stuck in the slow lane.

The manipulation of electric utility capacity looted billions in recent history, mainly in California. The manipulation of internet capacity has a broader population base to exploit. Antitrust laws and utility regulation are completly appropriate here!

...and you still jump on Breitbart for reporting it. Amazing blindness for someone who claims to not be e lefty.

No, he has three.

Direct from the top. It's clear he's directing the takeover of another hunk of the economy. Don't be surprised when it turns into the lamestreaminternet.

Nonsense. Congress has intentionally left the Internet alone. This is nothing but a Democratic power grab.

Spin.

...and whoever sues will be found to have "no standing".

BooHoo! The same jerks, like you, who want a free lunch.

Wondering? They know. They will have to pay for their usage. What's the problem?

Absurd. Their competition can enter into their own agreement. But you repeat yourself.

Absurd. The government was wholly responsible for that debacle. California essentially forced that "manipulation".

Yes, and I WISH this were possible! But, there is only ONE real ISP within 50 miles of me, Charter (cable provider). DSL is mostly awful unless your lines are in optimum shape and very close to the CO, and satellite is usually very expensive and slow.

So, in fact, I do NOT have any competition in my area.

Jon

Where is that? No Satellite?

The Enron thing happened under California's stringent *new*, tighter regulations.

Among other things, they forced utilities to divest their generation capacity and buy off the State's new power exchange. Like Obamacare.

Futures contracts were outlawed, and the producers and electrical power retailers were forced to haggle out new prices every day. Which Enron could get ahead of and profit from influencing.

It worked reallllllly well.

Here's the commissioner in his own words:

Cheers, James Arthur

Half-truth! Enron was in Texas, California regulations stop at the CA state border. It was the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that was asleep at the switch (and remained inert until the Supreme Court heard about it). I'd put the big part of blame on Enron and unindicted co-conspirators, secondary on GWB and his FERC sidekicks.

The CA regulatory environment might have worked, with the FERC support they had a right to expect. We'll never be sure. What we CAN be sure of, is that the damages couldn't be made good by Enron during their bankruptcy.

Oh, no! Mark Levin? You can't believe the commissioner actually said it, if it's from Mark Levin!

So in other words, you don't have a clue... For downloading, the only limitation is on total data transferred in a month. There is nothing to preclude watching streaming videos which is what we are talking about here.

You just keep insisting "it is Netflix's fault". Not everyone uses Netflix. Many people watch YouTube and have the same impact on bandwidth. Or they can go to many, many sites with streaming video. It is the customer's choice and not the provider's.

Not after the FCC rules for net neutrality.

Lol. I can't even respond to that.

Lol. At least I don't need to revamp my world model to get anywhere close to reality.

No, in other words, you're too stupid to read. I'm actually surprised you can breathe.

It *is* Netflix (and their customer's) fault. They're the ones busting the backbone. It can be fixed but it does cost money. That money is coming from Netflix (and their customers). Good deal!

I know you're too stupid to read the above. I've only written it a dozen times and you still have the same stupid comments.

Idiotic statement (your usual).

The Internet will not exist, as we know it, after "Net Neutrality" (which is nothing of the kind). It will certainly get a lot more expensive for everyone, not just those using the services. You lefties like that, though.

You're never able.

Laugh at yourself. Everyone else is.