Net Neutrality

[mrsleeve]

^

We have those in power by and large now and just had 8 years of it in the OVAL hence all the "intervention" . TR's Bull Moose party is the modern "Progressive" no matter the "traditional" party affiliation on the ballot. TR may have been an R but was considered a near "radical reformer" with in the party and was that factions leader and most notable member. TR was a Great Great man and one I highly respect, but not for his political affiliation and his tenure as POTUS for the most part.

[kickinindian]

we need a 21st century Teddy Roosevelt. CYBERMOOSE PARTY!

[Schnitzer318is]

And here's the point. Get the fed's to regulate all this and the innovation will cease.

Nobody wants them to regulate EVERYTHING. Net Neutrality talks to keeping the telecoms from being the gate keepers of everything we use on the internet. They are quadruple dipping charging the consumer to receive data, rent a modem, the creator to send the data, and again the consumer in taxes. The last being ironic in that they were title 2 taxes collected, specifically, to rollout a fiber network by 2005ish. Since they no longer have title 2 classification, and never built the infrastructure they promised, maybe they should be required to return all the title 2 taxes they collected to the consumers. That sounds logical to me. But I can guess what the chances of that ever happening would be...

You have not substantiated, or even posed a position, as to how net neutrality would stifle innovation or infrastructure spending. The reality, and this is provable by looking at the last 20 years, is that the ISP's have intentionally stifled innovation and halted progress in order to maximize profits by not spending money competing. And they are able to do that because they have cut out service areas for themselves to avoid overlap. A small percentage of the population has more than 2 choices for an ISP. And a much smaller percentage has 3. So the consumer is held hostage... and can not exercise his/her spending power to spur innovation through competition.

As I have always said, I am all for capitalism and the free market. But we don't have that, and won't ever have it without some sort of guidelines as to how the ISP's can operate. You can call it regulation if you like, I call it leveling the playing field to allow development and new-comers. You know, that whole anti-trust law thing we used to believe in to go along with our capitalism.

[mrsleeve]

Now your being a bit purposefully slow... Yes there is still some green going up, but once the feds stoped paying for it all, its slowed dramatically from the 2010-2013 range.

[z31maniac]

What subsidies dried up? I frequently see turbine parts on I40 headed out to the western part of the state.

[mrsleeve]

^

Yes because all those power generation / utility companies did all that innovating while under the various amounts of state and federal near total regulation and price control for all those decades right. Well that is until all the Stimulus money started pouring in from the Govt for all those "Green Energy Solutions", that once those "subsidies" dried up.................. well you know.

[z31maniac]

And here's the point. Get the fed's to regulate all this and the innovation will cease. The feds will regulate profits to google, etc., but the guy tinkering with potentially disruptive tech will be a thing of the past.
And if google, Verizon etc have no competition, why innovate?

Profit George, profit.

The same reason all companies innovate.

[gwb72tii]

And here's the point. Get the fed's to regulate all this and the innovation will cease. The feds will regulate profits to google, etc., but the guy tinkering with potentially disruptive tech will be a thing of the past.
And if google, Verizon etc have no competition, why innovate?

[supermansocks95]

I guess I don't understand your reply. You said we barely hand land based broadband for metro areas.

Or are you considering "metro area" much smaller than me?

Maybe he means rural...

[z31maniac]

Yeah thats quite the assumption?

I guess I don't understand your reply. You said we barely hand land based broadband for metro areas.

Or are you considering "metro area" much smaller than me?

[Wschnitz]

Well that's a bit of a stretch, unless you're saying anything less than 300mb down isn't "really broadband."

Anything fast enough to stream HD video, for example, has been in all the metro areas for far more than a decade.

Yeah thats quite the assumption?

[z31maniac]

Physical hardware is better anyway, this random push for #G technology is really stupid. We barely have land based broadband for the countries metro areas.

Well that's a bit of a stretch, unless you're saying anything less than 300mb down isn't "really broadband."

Anything fast enough to stream HD video, for example, has been in all the metro areas for far more than a decade.

[superj]

I plug all the high use items in at the house because I think physical connection is better, also.

[Wschnitz]

Physical hardware is better anyway, this random push for #G technology is really stupid. We barely have land based broadband for the countries metro areas.

[superj]

not us. we have a 4g tower across the highway but I must be out of range because we are in 3g all the time. and once I get on base, we really drop down to old school and have to use land lines