Hey I'm rich, my stuff's big, I need a fast lane. did mention I'm rich.

[fromderinside]

FDD, in shift, Backs Fast Lanes for Web Traffic (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?hp&_r=0

...and away we go. don't you just love merican thinking. They're proposing to this because it's 'economically reasonable'.

It was deemed economically reasonable in Britain in the 1800s to throw people into debtor's prison. the US, bless it's little heart, decided to outlaw that kind of thing because 'we were all created equal'.

Times have changed.

Your comments.

 

[Derec]

Yet again Dems cave on where they should be holding firm and hold firm where they should cave (for example Keystone XL). Shame.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yet again Dems cave on where they should be holding firm and hold firm where they should cave (for example Keystone XL). Shame.

How does this have anything to do with Democrats "caving" on anything? This is all a direct result of the revolving door between industry and those regulating that same industry. Wheeler was an industry lobbyist before becoming FCC Chairman, now that he is Chairman he is enacting rules that are beneficial to the industry he is regulating, and detrimental to just about everyone else. In a couple of years he will likely be back in that industry, reaping the profits from the rules he implemented. Democrats, as well as Republicans, are up in arms about this, and they should be.

 

[Derec]

Yet again Dems cave on where they should be holding firm and hold firm where they should cave (for example Keystone XL). Shame.

How does this have anything to do with Democrats "caving" on anything? This is all a direct result of the revolving door between industry and those regulating that same industry. Wheeler was an industry lobbyist before becoming FCC Chairman, now that he is Chairman he is enacting rules that are beneficial to the industry he is regulating, and detrimental to just about everyone else. In a couple of years he will likely be back in that industry, reaping the profits from the rules he implemented. Democrats, as well as Republicans, are up in arms about this, and they should be.

Wheeler was appointed by Obama, who made a campaign promise regarding net neutrality.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I think what the FCC has realized is that the changed involved really amount to just a hill of beans, and the changes involved sound more drastic than they really are.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yet again Dems cave on where they should be holding firm and hold firm where they should cave (for example Keystone XL). Shame.

How does this have anything to do with Democrats "caving" on anything? This is all a direct result of the revolving door between industry and those regulating that same industry. Wheeler was an industry lobbyist before becoming FCC Chairman, now that he is Chairman he is enacting rules that are beneficial to the industry he is regulating, and detrimental to just about everyone else. In a couple of years he will likely be back in that industry, reaping the profits from the rules he implemented. Democrats, as well as Republicans, are up in arms about this, and they should be.

Wheeler was appointed by Obama, who made a campaign promise regarding net neutrality.

Obama made a campaign promise in 2007 to enact net neutrality rules, which happened in 2010, which is exactly the opposite of him caving. Unfortunately, the rules were struck down by U.S. Court of Appeals earlier this year. This paved the way for Wheeler to propose his new net neutrality rules, which are hardly neutral. At this point the rules are only a leaked framework, not even officially proposed by the FCC, and we have not even reached the public comment period, yet over a million signatures have been delivered to the FCC opposing the upcoming rules. Whether anyone has "caved", or not, is yet to be determined.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet again Dems cave on where they should be holding firm and hold firm where they should cave (for example Keystone XL). Shame.

How does this have anything to do with Democrats "caving" on anything?

Obama isn't pushing for it now. So yeah, I'd say the Democrats are disappointing here, but it isn't like the Democrats could get such legislation through Congress that would give the FCC the power that SCOTUS said FCC was not granted.

Democrats, as well as Republicans, are up in arms about this, and they should be.

The FCC already tried to deal with this and were rebuffed by SCOTUS. If the Dems and Republicans really cared, they'd pass legislation to fix this.

 

[fromderinside]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

 

[coloradoatheist]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

How does that apply here? Do we consider it morally wrong that United has a first class section that has shorter lines for people who pay more?

 

[KeepTalking]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

How does that apply here? Do we consider it morally wrong that United has a first class section that has shorter lines for people who pay more?

But that is not the situation here. The ISPs are already charging customers more for higher bandwidth limits, which would be analogous to buying a first class ticket. Now they want to charge the content providers to "speed up" (which is actually a payment not to slow down) their traffic to the customers who are already paying for faster service. So, for your analogy to hold true, we would see a situation where you have paid for first class accommodation, but when you arrive to take your seat you find that there is no difference between first class and coach because the airline is trying to get seat manufacturers to pay more for the privilege of providing you with a more comfortable seat.

 

[fromderinside]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

How does that apply here? Do we consider it morally wrong that United has a first class section that has shorter lines for people who pay more?

We only regulate flight procedures and the mail for airlines. We do not regulate who gets to fly beyond rejecting those who are likely to hurt us.

Everybody uses information on the web and part of that information is it's amount and timeliness.

 

[coloradoatheist]

However we forget it's private content going over another private company's infrastructure to get to your private computer. The hard part is that's a little different than most transactions because you can have competitors products going over a competitor's property. It is like McDonalds having to sell Burger King's hamburgers.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

How does that apply here? Do we consider it morally wrong that United has a first class section that has shorter lines for people who pay more?

But that is not the situation here. The ISPs are already charging customers more for higher bandwidth limits, which would be analogous to buying a first class ticket. Now they want to charge the content providers to "speed up" (which is actually a payment not to slow down) their traffic to the customers who are already paying for faster service. So, for your analogy to hold true, we would see a situation where you have paid for first class accommodation, but when you arrive to take your seat you find that there is no difference between first class and coach because the airline is trying to get seat manufacturers to pay more for the privilege of providing you with a more comfortable seat.

The analogy does apply here because what a company would be paying more for is that when there is a line a company pays extra to have the priviledge of being in the shorter first class line compared to having to wait in the general class line. The get slightly better service but everybody arrives at the same destination but first class passengers are the first to get off the plane.

 

[Derec]

However we forget it's private content going over another private company's infrastructure to get to your private computer. The hard part is that's a little different than most transactions because you can have competitors products going over a competitor's property. It is like McDonalds having to sell Burger King's hamburgers.

No, it's like McDonalds owning the road and charging Burger King extra to allow its customers to get there.

 

[coloradoatheist]

However we forget it's private content going over another private company's infrastructure to get to your private computer. The hard part is that's a little different than most transactions because you can have competitors products going over a competitor's property. It is like McDonalds having to sell Burger King's hamburgers.

No, it's like McDonalds owning the road and charging Burger King extra to allow its customers to get there.

But it's slightly different here. McDonalds built the roads so people can get to McDonalds and buy BigMacs. Now BK comes in and says we don't want to build roads so we want to use McDonalds roads.

 

[KeepTalking]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

How does that apply here? Do we consider it morally wrong that United has a first class section that has shorter lines for people who pay more?

But that is not the situation here. The ISPs are already charging customers more for higher bandwidth limits, which would be analogous to buying a first class ticket. Now they want to charge the content providers to "speed up" (which is actually a payment not to slow down) their traffic to the customers who are already paying for faster service. So, for your analogy to hold true, we would see a situation where you have paid for first class accommodation, but when you arrive to take your seat you find that there is no difference between first class and coach because the airline is trying to get seat manufacturers to pay more for the privilege of providing you with a more comfortable seat.

The analogy does apply here because what a company would be paying more for is that when there is a line a company pays extra to have the priviledge of being in the shorter first class line compared to having to wait in the general class line. The get slightly better service but everybody arrives at the same destination but first class passengers are the first to get off the plane.

That's not it at all, the entity being charged extra in this case is not the end user of the product, be that airline seats, or internets. The end user has already paid to have a certain class of service provided, and has been receiving that service for years. Now, the service provider is dipping into the other end of the line, charging the user on one end, and the content provider on the other end for what the user has already paid. So, it is very much like arriving with your first class ticket, expecting a first class experience, but being told you are going to have to deal with a coach experience because the airline has not yet been able to extort more money from manufacturer of first class seats. It's so very much the opposite of what anyone should expect from a market experience, that I don't see how anyone who is not a part of the industry reaping the profits can defend the practice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

However we forget it's private content going over another private company's infrastructure to get to your private computer. The hard part is that's a little different than most transactions because you can have competitors products going over a competitor's property. It is like McDonalds having to sell Burger King's hamburgers.

No, it's like McDonalds owning the road and charging Burger King extra to allow its customers to get there.

But it's slightly different here. McDonalds built the roads so people can get to McDonalds and buy BigMacs. Now BK comes in and says we don't want to build roads so we want to use McDonalds roads.

The roads were built before hamburgers were invented. There was no Netflix or really entertainment streaming when the fiber optic infrastructure for the WWW was being put down.

 

[coloradoatheist]

However we forget it's private content going over another private company's infrastructure to get to your private computer. The hard part is that's a little different than most transactions because you can have competitors products going over a competitor's property. It is like McDonalds having to sell Burger King's hamburgers.

No, it's like McDonalds owning the road and charging Burger King extra to allow its customers to get there.

But it's slightly different here. McDonalds built the roads so people can get to McDonalds and buy BigMacs. Now BK comes in and says we don't want to build roads so we want to use McDonalds roads.

The roads were built before hamburgers were invented. There was no Netflix or really entertainment streaming when the fiber optic infrastructure for the WWW was being put down.

Huh. When Time Warner Cable and Comcast put their cable infrastructure in it was for their cable product. They then found out it couldalso be used for Internet access. They built the infrastructure for their product and now their competitors are usig their infrasture. It's a different situation then normal, but Netflix is relying on a competitor to provde their service. If Netflix wanted to, they could build out a network structure to reach homes.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

How does that apply here? Do we consider it morally wrong that United has a first class section that has shorter lines for people who pay more?

But that is not the situation here. The ISPs are already charging customers more for higher bandwidth limits, which would be analogous to buying a first class ticket. Now they want to charge the content providers to "speed up" (which is actually a payment not to slow down) their traffic to the customers who are already paying for faster service. So, for your analogy to hold true, we would see a situation where you have paid for first class accommodation, but when you arrive to take your seat you find that there is no difference between first class and coach because the airline is trying to get seat manufacturers to pay more for the privilege of providing you with a more comfortable seat.

The analogy does apply here because what a company would be paying more for is that when there is a line a company pays extra to have the priviledge of being in the shorter first class line compared to having to wait in the general class line. The get slightly better service but everybody arrives at the same destination but first class passengers are the first to get off the plane.

That's not it at all, the entity being charged extra in this case is not the end user of the product, be that airline seats, or internets. The end user has already paid to have a certain class of service provided, and has been receiving that service for years. Now, the service provider is dipping into the other end of the line, charging the user on one end, and the content provider on the other end for what the user has already paid. So, it is very much like arriving with your first class ticket, expecting a first class experience, but being told you are going to have to deal with a coach experience because the airline has not yet been able to extort more money from manufacturer of first class seats. It's so very much the opposite of what anyone should expect from a market experience, that I don't see how anyone who is not a part of the industry reaping the profits can defend the practice.

Except it's equivalent to you buying a book from amazon and instead of using regular mail they will use UPS to send it faster. The question is how much faster and much the other side can charge for the added benefit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

However we forget it's private content going over another private company's infrastructure to get to your private computer. The hard part is that's a little different than most transactions because you can have competitors products going over a competitor's property. It is like McDonalds having to sell Burger King's hamburgers.

No, it's like McDonalds owning the road and charging Burger King extra to allow its customers to get there.

But it's slightly different here. McDonalds built the roads so people can get to McDonalds and buy BigMacs. Now BK comes in and says we don't want to build roads so we want to use McDonalds roads.

The roads were built before hamburgers were invented. There was no Netflix or really entertainment streaming when the fiber optic infrastructure for the WWW was being put down.

Huh. When Time Warner Cable and Comcast put their cable infrastructure in it was for their cable product. They then found out it couldalso be used for Internet access. They built the infrastructure for their product and now their competitors are usig their infrasture.

The major infrastructure isn't the line going to your home. The skeleton of fiber optic that crosses the nation that makes Streaming video possible was not installed by the cable companies. AT&T and Verizon would probably be the only entertainment providers that put in any of the major continental line.