Take action to force carriers to open networks and stop crippling devices.

[MrObvious]

Hmm interesting discussion. I don't have much to add except for it would be nice if wireless carriers jived but oh well.

[slbailey1]

Originally Posted by boredandtattooed

net neutrality is BAD... u guys must not have children

also, crippling devices how??? theyll still always be allowed to set their specs, and gps blocks,etc if they want..

Crippling devices how - How about any Windows Mobile 6.5 and higher phones sold by Verizon will have the Marketplace link removed!!!

[elephant007]

Good points

The Government let Bell be a regulated monopoly, they supported Bell in their endevors partially because Bell laid the cable for the telephone network (not saying that they didn't get monies from the Federal Government for help). To this day, even if there are other landline providers, they still pay a fee to Ma Bell for using their network. With exception of Sprint or was it GTE, which laid their own network.
Basically what I'm saying is that Bell didn't let anyone on their network because they didn't have to, not until a public out cry (okay it was most likely backed by huge corporations like most movements)

There are some choices we have, go with a provider that least controls their own network, don't use any devices, get a device, complain and hope action takes place.

Wow anyone remember commercials like these?? HA HA I DO!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlaA4fU2QiI

Boredandtattooed, I can't believe you're against Net Neutrality, I mean being that you're against our government that's broken you want them to control the internet? Asking a legitimate question, not be a smartass

[BlackDynamite]

I just hope boredandtattooed understands that all over the rest of the world they have been enjoying their Touch Pro 2's, Diamond 2's, and so on and so forth- WITH video calling, for several months now. There is a reason the USA is way behind the game when it comes to wireless.

Supposedly the richest country in the world, with arguably the most wasteful and impulse spending population on the planet. And yet we're always the last to get the cool phones, and when we finally do get them, they're stripped down shells.

[constitutionalist]

Originally Posted by elephant007

Good points

The Government let Bell be a regulated monopoly, they supported Bell in their endevors partially because Bell laid the cable for the telephone network (not saying that they didn't get monies from the Federal Government for help). To this day, even if there are other landline providers, they still pay a fee to Ma Bell for using their network. With exception of Sprint or was it GTE, which laid their own network.
Basically what I'm saying is that Bell didn't let anyone on their network because they didn't have to, not until a public out cry (okay it was most likely backed by huge corporations like most movements)

There are some choices we have, go with a provider that least controls their own network, don't use any devices, get a device, complain and hope action takes place.

Wow anyone remember commercials like these?? HA HA I DO!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlaA4fU2QiI

Boredandtattooed, I can't believe you're against Net Neutrality, I mean being that you're against our government that's broken you want them to control the internet? Asking a legitimate question, not be a smartass

Precisely why we don't want the government essentially running healthcare, the internet, or cellcos. It creates a quasi- or official monopoly that stagnates the industry more than anything else. Just look at the post office and the DMV, or the quasi-private Bell monopoly of most of the 20th Century.

I think the answer here is to create a dues-paying consumers union that has the ability to get millions of members to act in unison and can pool resources to legally represent customers being unfairly treated in court. Government will not only over-regulate the industry, it will do so slowly and will always be responding to yesterday's issues, leaving open loopholes that are exploited by the industry's lawyers to their advantage (and it doesn't hurt that industry lawyers and execs are friends of those who'd write the regulations, anyway). In other words, a government solution that fails to address consumer interests is a foregone conclusion. Only we have the power and ability to properly look after our own interests.

Screw the government.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by constitutionalist

Precisely why we don't want the government essentially running healthcare, the internet, or cellcos. It creates a quasi- or official monopoly that stagnates the industry more than anything else. Just look at the post office and the DMV, or the quasi-private Bell monopoly of most of the 20th Century.

I think the answer here is to create a dues-paying consumers union that has the ability to get millions of members to act in unison and can pool resources to legally represent customers being unfairly treated in court. Government will not only over-regulate the industry, it will do so slowly and will always be responding to yesterday's issues, leaving open loopholes that are exploited by the industry's lawyers to their advantage (and it doesn't hurt that industry lawyers and execs are friends of those who'd write the regulations, anyway). In other words, a government solution that fails to address consumer interests is a foregone conclusion. Only we have the power and ability to properly look after our own interests.

Screw the government.

I understand where you're coming from, but... You're crazy if you think it's easier to corrupt a government (friends of the industry drafting the regulations) than it is to corrupt a union president.

To corrup the government, there would have to be lots of reps and senators on the payroll (which I'm not saying there aren't already, just that it would be required). To corrupt a union, they would only need 1 union president on the payroll.

I don't think the government needs ot be regulating our internet. But I do think the government needs to tell all the ISP's that they can't regulate our internet either.

Remember- Comcast was actually busted (after initially denying it) for slowing and blocking bit torrent traffic. This was primarily directed at Directv customers trying to use their Directv On Demand service. Comcast internet customers were beiong lied to, saying Comcast doesn't slow or block any traffic, and the blame was placed with Directv. Directv On Demand customers were left thinking Directv's service sucked, and Comcast was welcoming them in with open arms to the Comcast cable tv service with their own On Demand.

When ISP's start doing that kind of crap, yes, the government has to step in. And this isn't a hypothetical worse case scenario, this happened already.

[constitutionalist]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

I understand where you're coming from, but... You're crazy if you think it's easier to corrupt a government (friends of the industry drafting the regulations) than it is to corrupt a union president.

To corrup the government, there would have to be lots of reps and senators on the payroll (which I'm not saying there aren't already, just that it would be required). To corrupt a union, they would only need 1 union president on the payroll.

I don't think the government needs ot be regulating our internet. But I do think the government needs to tell all the ISP's that they can't regulate our internet either.

Remember- Comcast was actually busted (after initially denying it) for slowing and blocking bit torrent traffic. This was primarily directed at Directv customers trying to use their Directv On Demand service. Comcast internet customers were beiong lied to, saying Comcast doesn't slow or block any traffic, and the blame was placed with Directv. Directv On Demand customers were left thinking Directv's service sucked, and Comcast was welcoming them in with open arms to the Comcast cable tv service with their own On Demand.

When ISP's start doing that kind of crap, yes, the government has to step in. And this isn't a hypothetical worse case scenario, this happened already.

Sounds great, except for one problem: much of our government already is corrupt, so this already exits the realm of theory. On to your point of corrupted unions (at least labor unions), there is no question these have proven easily corruptible as well. In fact, the long, incestuous trail of quid pro quo between labor union bosses and government officials goes back well over a century and it's dirty; very dirty. But we're not talking a labor union here. Consumer advocacy unions are quite something else and have had a much better track record, partly because of better transparency brought about by greater accountability (unlike the government and labor unions, contributions and membership is voluntary).

Another problem with government telling ISPs what to do with their networks is that government officials, often corrupt, self-interested government officials have agendas far from altruistic ones; and when altruistic, far from well-informed (a fact amplified by the total lack of private sector experience within this current administration, as well as some others before it). That's not to say I don't think there should be any regulation; I just think you and I might disagree where that line should fall. Certainly, wherever Comcast acts in an anti-competitive manner by blocking access to Direct TV, there is reason for intervention. In fact, there are already laws on the books for that and even better, Direct TV, if it feels injured, has a team of lawyers to battle it out in civil court - thus the consumer wins. The best way to deal with Comcast and bit torrent is not for the government to say it can't block bittorrent. Rather, it's for consumers to pull together and begin throwing their weight around. If even 20 percent of Comcast users said, "alright, we've had enough and we're leaving, early term fee or not", Comcast would sit up. As it is now in the first place, no one knows if any more than a tiny handful of people were truly harmed by Comcast practices and Comcast doesn't respect its customers but simply sends its lawyers out to find the latest loophole in government regulation knowing it will likely take years for those loopholes to be fixed, especially as Comcast, the effective new owner of NBC - a network quite friendly to the current government - greases palms and hosts fancy luncheons inside the Beltway.

But of course in the case of Comcast, one also wonders how many people were really "harmed" by its practice. While my sympathies absolutely lie with those who wish to be free to use bit torrent, I have to say, I bet it was a tiny number of customers, who, thanks to the free market system, have the choice of which broadband provider they prefer to use (or in certain rural areas, where Comcast is the only broadband provider, may have to wait, but I doubt anyone is going to die in the meantime). The point is, if enough people demand a service, someone will sell it and make it available. Unfortunately, big government and it's endless string of yesteryear regulations kills the ability of the market to respond in this manner.

In the meantime, you already have politically-motivated government types (and of course, the problem is that is redundant), expressing that they would like to use Net Neutrality as an open door through which to regulate certain types of political speech on the internet at the same time that several top FCC officials have also called for regulation of political blogs and news sites, restricting editorials and forcing them to advocate views with which they are not sympathetic in order to be permitted to advocate their own. And then there is the FEC, which is looking into whether political blogs and news sites can be censored and fined for supporting views, policies, and candidates during an election year. In all, we have three separate bureaucracies advocating policies that would likely give Vladimir Putin a controlgasm. A slippery slope, to be sure, but again not theory but something already happening.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by constitutionalist

Sounds great, except for one problem: much of our government already is corrupt, so this already exits the realm of theory. On to your point of corrupted unions (at least labor unions), there is no question these have proven easily corruptible as well. In fact, the long, incestuous trail of quid pro quo between labor union bosses and government officials goes back well over a century and it's dirty; very dirty. But we're not talking a labor union here. Consumer advocacy unions are quite something else and have had a much better track record, partly because of better transparency brought about by greater accountability (unlike the government and labor unions, contributions and membership is voluntary).

Another problem with government telling ISPs what to do with their networks is that government officials, often corrupt, self-interested government officials have agendas far from altruistic ones; and when altruistic, far from well-informed (a fact amplified by the total lack of private sector experience within this current administration, as well as some others before it). That's not to say I don't think there should be any regulation; I just think you and I might disagree where that line should fall. Certainly, wherever Comcast acts in an anti-competitive manner by blocking access to Direct TV, there is reason for intervention. In fact, there are already laws on the books for that and even better, Direct TV, if it feels injured, has a team of lawyers to battle it out in civil court - thus the consumer wins. The best way to deal with Comcast and bit torrent is not for the government to say it can't block bittorrent. Rather, it's for consumers to pull together and begin throwing their weight around. If even 20 percent of Comcast users said, "alright, we've had enough and we're leaving, early term fee or not", Comcast would sit up. As it is now in the first place, no one knows if any more than a tiny handful of people were truly harmed by Comcast practices and Comcast doesn't respect its customers but simply sends its lawyers out to find the latest loophole in government regulation knowing it will likely take years for those loopholes to be fixed, especially as Comcast, the effective new owner of NBC - a network quite friendly to the current government - greases palms and hosts fancy luncheons inside the Beltway.

But of course in the case of Comcast, one also wonders how many people were really "harmed" by its practice. While my sympathies absolutely lie with those who wish to be free to use bit torrent, I have to say, I bet it was a tiny number of customers, who, thanks to the free market system, have the choice of which broadband provider they prefer to use (or in certain rural areas, where Comcast is the only broadband provider, may have to wait, but I doubt anyone is going to die in the meantime). The point is, if enough people demand a service, someone will sell it and make it available. Unfortunately, big government and it's endless string of yesteryear regulations kills the ability of the market to respond in this manner.

In the meantime, you already have politically-motivated government types (and of course, the problem is that is redundant), expressing that they would like to use Net Neutrality as an open door through which to regulate certain types of political speech on the internet at the same time that several top FCC officials have also called for regulation of political blogs and news sites, restricting editorials and forcing them to advocate views with which they are not sympathetic in order to be permitted to advocate their own. And then there is the FEC, which is looking into whether political blogs and news sites can be censored and fined for supporting views, policies, and candidates during an election year. In all, we have three separate bureaucracies advocating policies that would likely give Vladimir Putin a controlgasm. A slippery slope, to be sure, but again not theory but something already happening.

Well you are speaking in generalities and what ifs, but I am talking about an actual event that happened. We don't have to speculate about what would happen without governement intervention, because this actually happened.

As for your statement about Directv battling it out in civil court- good for Directv. However, there were tons of other services being blocked that were way too small to take on Comcast. This is why Comcast got away with literally lying about it for so long. Once Directv realized that Comcast was telling their custromers that Directv just sucked and that's why it didn't work, then Directv got involved too.

And your question about 20% of the customers demanding better- yeah right. For one thing, most of them are under contract with an ETF. For another thing, these customers don't even know it is happening. As I said, Comcast flat out lied about it for quite some time.

I agree with you that we don't need the government regulating everything. But this is one thing we clearly do need the government to regulate. Companies like Comcast are way too big for the average consumer to fight. Heck, Comcast is way too big for even a smaller corporation to fight (like the many legal music and video services who were being blocked on Comcast's network but were too small to do anything about it). We absolutely need to govenment to ensure our internet remains open. No ISP should be able to block any content (provided the content is not illegal like kiddie porn or viruses or something like that).

Your argument seems to be "the government can't be trusted." I don't disagree. I don't think they can be trusted either. But they can certainly be trusted a lot more than corporations like Comcast who openly admit they only have their own best interests in mind. The internet is basically a public utility now- you pretty much have to have it. And the government has always regulated public utilities.

If you are so sure the government is corrupt and won't act in our best interests, then you should be campaigning for government reform. Put term limits on everyone in congress, ban campaign contributions over $20 or so, ban lobbyists altogether, and whatever other steps may be needed to get it done. But we can't let corporations run the country just because we don't trust the government...

[cassith]

i'm not going to write a book on this subject, but NO to net neutrality.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by cassith

i'm not going to write a book on this subject, but NO to net neutrality.

How on earth could anyone be against net nuetrality? Do you own a large ISP and want to start charging extra for certain web sites or something?