Hillary Endorses Net Neutrality - Federal Control of the Internet and the Taking Do
- Thread starter northwye
- Start date
It is appropriate only in our military and in our police and fire departments. And for our libraries and utilities.
Otherwise, it is poisonous.
Do we sit back and let the Net get poisoned?
musterion
Well-known member
NN is just the innocuous sounding blanket cover the leftists always use for their nefarities. The end-run around CU is only one prong of the pitchfork.
Question: What was behind the IRS's "delays" in processing, or even acknowledging, applications from conservatives, even to this very day? Hint: it was not a sheer incompetent oopsie.
Therein lies your answer, or a big part of it.
PureX
Well-known member
It is going on where I live, between Verizon and Netflix. Verizon has deliberately restricted Netflix data transmission sufficiently to render Netflix unusable. It began the actual day that the court found in favor of the FCC decision not to regulate, and it continued until Netflix finally paid Verizon a massive multi-million dollar "fee" (legalized extortion money) to Verizon to get them to stop choking off Netflix data transmission to it's IP customers. I am one of those customers, and I have no other provider options in my area for the high speed internet required for data streaming. Verizon has a monopoly on high speed internet access in my area, and they used it to choke Netflix streaming, until Netflix paid them to stop it. (They did not choke Amazon's streaming, and I do not know why.)
It's even worse for people who get their internet service from cable companies like ComCast, because they have a direct interest in choking off internet streaming sites like Netflix and Amazon as these are competition to their cable services.
The net neutrality issue is one of fair business practices, not internet control. In fact, it's about ending internet control by companies that are currently using their monopoly of internet access to extort money from internet based companies like Netflix and Amazon, and/or using their monopoly on internet access to deny functionality to internet-based services that compete with their other corporate enterprises.
PureX
Well-known member
The Internet is now the main medium used by the alternative media, which exposes the often deceptive manipulations of the financial and corporate elites. The elites cannot allow the alternative media to continue to gain viewers and listeners, while the old controlled corporate media continues to lose viewers and becomes the Dinosaur Media. And - the technology now available for many to stream live video to Internet sites during an event is an ever present danger to the elite's control of the narrative. We saw the use of live video streaming by the alternative media in April of 2014 with the Bundy situation in Nevada.
PureX
Well-known member
Capitalism is a bad economic system and it always has been. It places all the decision-making power in the hands of the capital investors, who care nothing of the well-being of anyone else involved in the business enterprise, and seek only to increase their own wealth.
All human interaction must be regulated by rule of law so as to keep the weaker from being abused and exploited by the stronger. And this is especially true in relation to commercial interactions because where money is involved, greed will run rampant.
Net neutrality is about minimizing the abuses of IP monopoly. And monopoly is the inevitable result of ungoverned capitalism. It's because we do not restrain the greed of capitalism in this country, properly, that we have the problem of it's abuse in the first place. "Net neutrality" is an attempt at trying to correct some of those abuses. If internet providers are allowed to choke the data streams of any web based business they choose, they become the arbiters of all web business. They can extort money from them, drive them out of business, and deny their own customers access to and even knowledge of the possibilities that should be available to them.
It would be like privatizing package delivery throughout the nation, and putting it in the hands of only a half dozen private companies, and then allowing those companies to deny service to whomever they choose. They would immediately begin extorting money for their delivery services. They would drive any business that didn't pay their extortion money out of business. And they could thereby take control of any business they wanted simply by threatening to cut off their delivery services. This would not be good for business. It would not be good for consumers. It would not be good for the advancement of society, and it would undermine any existing government.
PureX
Well-known member
This is also an excellent point.
And of course we can trust the GOVERNMENT to rule us in beauty and truth, justice and mercy, economically and honestly?
Once we have been reduced to complete pawns by the government in collusion with big business anarchy shall become the rule of the day.
PureX
Well-known member
Well, at least we have some control of government, via democratic process. We have absolutely NO control over private businesses except through government regulation, and private businesses have no interest whatever in our well-being. So of the two, we have a better chance of protecting ourselves by maintaining strong governmental oversight of private business. But yes, we also need to maintain a strong oversight of government, itself, via the democratic process.
Something that we are sadly not doing to the degree that we should.
We will not be reduced to anything unless we allow it. Unfortunately, we are currently so divided against each other that we are completely inept at controlling government OR business. And we are being grossly exploited by both, as a result.
But that's our own fault. We still have the means by which to take back control of our government. We just need to stop fighting and blaming each other long enough to do it. But until we do that, keep in mind that private businesses really don't care if you live or die, or how much you suffer in the meantime. Neither do most politicians, except when elections are looming. And that's when we have the power.
Sadly, we now squander our electoral power on petty ideological nonsense issues instead of facing and dealing with the corruption of our government by the excessive greed and economic inequity of a few. We control government in the voting booth. And we control business in the marketplace. But to do either, we have to act together. We have to unite and act with singular purpose. And we are not doing this.
:idunno: Still not seeing it. But time will tell.
Quincy
New member
There are countless people on youtube and various websites like Ustream and Twitch.tv that are making big money, into the millions, providing their own personally created content to viewers. This form of entertainment is growing fast, while archaic forms like traditional TV are dying fast.
So we were left with the scenario of a company like Comcast or TWC watching their revenue dwindle from traditional entertainment distribution channels, while companies from Netflix to Livestream to Twitch are having a large boom in business..... and all that happening on the backbone of the ISPs like Comcast and TWC.
It's quite comical, really. These TV providers, with their price gouging, cutting channels, raising prices, political party platform vehicles and stale content are bleeding out to internet channels that are using their network backbone. Utterly brilliant.
So these crooks try putting in data caps (when it doesn't cost anything more than maintenance fees to transfer a byte of data from point a to b), among other things. Word breaks of possible plans to create internet fast and slow lanes, which the FCC was considering proposing rules for that btw and it's very clear that this is about wanting control over what worked properly over the interenet and what didn't. TWC having a deal with Netflix would mean that everyone without TWC wouldn't be able to use Netflix, at least properly. That kind of lack of choice is exactly the opposite of free market. It's good capitalism but it's not free market philosophy.
If the FCC hadn't done this and instead proposed rules that could allow for fast lanes, it would probably have put many entrepreneurial content creators on youtube and twitch (just two examples) out of work because there would potentially be hard caps on the creators, making uploading content near impossible.
It really surprises me that conservatives who claim to support the entrepreneurial spirit would have favored rules that could have hurt so many self-employed content creators. I guess either old people and suits don't know these folks exist or they think people should get a "real" job, like flipping burgers.
The only good that would have came from this, had NN not went into effect, would have been Google. Google would have took their network national I bet, and their network would be equality based. It would have had much better data speeds, too. Plus we would have seen the death of the old stale providers and the money they pour into even more stale/lame political campaigns.
Maybe NN should have died, afterall? :think:
So we were left with the scenario of a company like Comcast or TWC watching their revenue dwindle from traditional entertainment distribution channels, while companies from Netflix to Livestream to Twitch are having a large boom in business..... and all that happening on the backbone of the ISPs like Comcast and TWC.
It's quite comical, really. These TV providers, with their price gouging, cutting channels, raising prices, political party platform vehicles and stale content are bleeding out to internet channels that are using their network backbone. Utterly brilliant.
So these crooks try putting in data caps (when it doesn't cost anything more than maintenance fees to transfer a byte of data from point a to b), among other things. Word breaks of possible plans to create internet fast and slow lanes, which the FCC was considering proposing rules for that btw and it's very clear that this is about wanting control over what worked properly over the interenet and what didn't. TWC having a deal with Netflix would mean that everyone without TWC wouldn't be able to use Netflix, at least properly. That kind of lack of choice is exactly the opposite of free market. It's good capitalism but it's not free market philosophy.
If the FCC hadn't done this and instead proposed rules that could allow for fast lanes, it would probably have put many entrepreneurial content creators on youtube and twitch (just two examples) out of work because there would potentially be hard caps on the creators, making uploading content near impossible.
It really surprises me that conservatives who claim to support the entrepreneurial spirit would have favored rules that could have hurt so many self-employed content creators. I guess either old people and suits don't know these folks exist or they think people should get a "real" job, like flipping burgers.
The only good that would have came from this, had NN not went into effect, would have been Google. Google would have took their network national I bet, and their network would be equality based. It would have had much better data speeds, too. Plus we would have seen the death of the old stale providers and the money they pour into even more stale/lame political campaigns.
Maybe NN should have died, afterall? :think:
My thought? The less government intervention the better. Let there be innovation!:up:
musterion
Well-known member
Innovation, a lot of it, resides in the middle class. Statists always seek to destroy the middle class because it also represents mobility. They want to eliminate that mobility and freeze social strata where they want them frozen. Control is much easier that way. That's why NN and all that will come with it will never affect Facebook, Google, etc, but will destroy nickle and dime net businesses of all kinds.
musterion
Well-known member
Good analysis of the issue.
https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam
Good comments, especially toward the top of the stack.
https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam
Good comments, especially toward the top of the stack.
His point about putting more control with the FCC who can be susceptible to lobbying and thus lessening the interest the companies have in pleasing the common customers is something I hadn't thought about before. Something to keep an eye out for.
Today's corporations and billionaires do not support either taxes or regulations. They both interfere with the capitalist system.
There is a profitable and good reason why the GOP turns a blind eye to monopolies. Reason: they are NOT monopolies.
They are examples of free enterprise that create jobs in America.