Obama weighs in on Net Neutrality . . . is automatically wrong

[Jarhyn]

What seems to be the problem here is that you think the "utilityness" of a thing is something people can decree. Let's be clear: a utility is a utility on virtue of what it is, not on virtue of what any person calls it. The idea that someone's statement of a thing being a utility makes it so are mere silliness. Nobody here is suggesting that Obama decree anything, nor that he has, nor that he will, with regards to broadband. We are saying that he made a statement. You seem to believe his statement false, and we are all asking you to show your work in resolving that broadband is not a utility.

Again, see post #34.

There was a discussion about Obama's legal authority to do anything about this. I made a comment about that and only about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

The exact quote is "Maybe, maybe not." it does not seem to be a statement of anything other than uncertainty.

So "conjecture" then?

I know this is very, very, very important.

- - - Updated - - -

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...omatically-wrong&p=85948&viewfull=1#post85948

Higgins makes no such assertion.

Yeah, it reads like jimmy is saying "maybe, maybe not" to the conjectured reason Obama felt he should say something.

So, does "conjecture" work for you?

Short answer? The only legal authority he has is to kick out Tom Wheeler and appoint someone who will get the job done. He has told Tom Wheeler to apply Title II, and now it is up to wheeler to do that or not.

Now back to the subect at hand: DO YOU think that data delivery infrastructure constitutrs a utility? And do you agree that utilities must be regulated to enforce neutrality?

 

[dismal]

Short answer? The only legal authority he has is to kick out Tom Wheeler and appoint someone who will get the job done. He has told Tom Wheeler to apply Title II, and now it is up to wheeler to do that or not.

I don't know whether or not he has the power to do any of that. Do you have a statute you are relying on you can cite?

Now back to the subect at hand: DO YOU think that data delivery infrastructure constitutrs a utility? And do you agree that utilities must be regulated to enforce neutrality?

I suppose it depends on how you define "utility" and "neutrality"

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't know whether or not he has the power to do any of that. Do you have a statute you are relying on you can cite?

Now back to the subect at hand: DO YOU think that data delivery infrastructure constitutrs a utility? And do you agree that utilities must be regulated to enforce neutrality?

I suppose it depends on how you define "utility" and "neutrality"

or how you define "obfuscate" and "intellectual dishonesty".

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know whether or not he has the power to do any of that. Do you have a statute you are relying on you can cite?

Now back to the subect at hand: DO YOU think that data delivery infrastructure constitutrs a utility? And do you agree that utilities must be regulated to enforce neutrality?

I suppose it depends on how you define "utility" and "neutrality"

I already defined utility for the purposes of this discussion, though I'd like to hear what you believe is an appropriate definition of 'utility' in this context and then how you would propose to regulate it. Because utilities by the previous definition require the agreement of an entire society, and the appropriation of lands and the voluntary accedance to allow a utility special rights (such as to drill on, and around their property, occupy a sovereign bandwidth range, get rights to build structures on public land, etc), and the limit of any similar service to do the same, the utility must provide the most general possible version of the service to the most general possible sector of the society, at the lowest possible price. This (or similar; I've had a long day!) is the principal which undergirds things such as roads, electrical companies, municipal sewer, etc..

If such companies were not regulated in this way they would simply use monopoly power to hold our ability to live in the modern age at ransom for whatever they wished. So If someone is given access to a special niche of the economy, they must be made to execute that niche for the good of society rather than the exclusive good of self.

 

[maxparrish]

Short answer? The only legal authority he has is to kick out Tom Wheeler and appoint someone who will get the job done. He has told Tom Wheeler to apply Title II, and now it is up to wheeler to do that or not.

Your seeming "Dear Leader' admiration of Obama's imperious personae has clouded your judgment - he does not have the authority to "kick out" any commissioner and appoint who he likes. Mind you, no one would be surprised if a President who finds the written law on immigration to be little more than annoying 'advice' would refrain sending out the federal Marshalls if he wished, but if Wheeler has the backbone he could bitch slap Obama - embarrassingly hard.

As a Clinton appointed commissioner, Harold Furchtgott-Roth explains to those who admire Obama's bully-boy fits:

Each of its five-member board is a commissioner, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Full disclosure: I was a Clinton-appointed commissioner from 1997 to 2001. Once confirmed, like judges, commissioners cannot be removed from office or fired by the president. They should not be bullied by anyone, least of all the president of the United States.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldf...11/president-obama-attacks-fccs-independence/

Now back to the subect at hand: DO YOU think that data delivery infrastructure constitutrs a utility? And do you agree that utilities must be regulated to enforce neutrality?

Given that "public utility" is a very broad term, I suppose all the companies providing ISP and infrastructure services for access by the public could be considered a utility. Whether or not it is appropriate to do so under FCC's Title II, or if neutrality is a good thing is a different matter.

My own view is leave it in Title I and cease meddling to impose "net neutrality".

 

[Jarhyn]

Your seeming "Dear Leader' admiration of Obama's imperious personae has clouded your judgment - he does not have the authority to "kick out" any commissioner and appoint who he likes. Mind you, no one would be surprised if a President who finds the written law on immigration to be little more than annoying 'advice' would refrain sending out the federal Marshalls if he wished, but if Wheeler has the backbone he could bitch slap Obama - embarrassingly hard.

As a Clinton appointed commissioner, Harold Furchtgott-Roth explains to those who admire Obama's bully-boy fits:

Each of its five-member board is a commissioner, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Full disclosure: I was a Clinton-appointed commissioner from 1997 to 2001. Once confirmed, like judges, commissioners cannot be removed from office or fired by the president. They should not be bullied by anyone, least of all the president of the United States.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldf...11/president-obama-attacks-fccs-independence/

Now back to the subect at hand: DO YOU think that data delivery infrastructure constitutrs a utility? And do you agree that utilities must be regulated to enforce neutrality?

Given that "public utility" is a very broad term, I suppose all the companies providing ISP and infrastructure services for access by the public could be considered a utility. Whether or not it is appropriate to do so under FCC's Title II, or if neutrality is a good thing is a different matter.

My own view is leave it in Title I and cease meddling to impose "net neutrality".

Ah. I stand corrected: Obama can't fire the sonofabitch. But that changes nothing else I said. Some jackass from Forbes shilling for the cable companies, and your nebulous comments about 'meddling' aside, you've given no good reason that broadband data transport infrastructure is substantially different from any other telecommunications provider. All that separates them is a massive conflict of interest between their services, and conflict of interest was one of the primary reasons Title II exists.

 

[maxparrish]

Your seeming "Dear Leader' admiration of Obama's imperious personae has clouded your judgment - he does not have the authority to "kick out" any commissioner and appoint who he likes. Mind you, no one would be surprised if a President who finds the written law on immigration to be little more than annoying 'advice' would refrain sending out the federal Marshalls if he wished, but if Wheeler has the backbone he could bitch slap Obama - embarrassingly hard.

As a Clinton appointed commissioner, Harold Furchtgott-Roth explains to those who admire Obama's bully-boy fits:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldf...11/president-obama-attacks-fccs-independence/

Now back to the subect at hand: DO YOU think that data delivery infrastructure constitutrs a utility? And do you agree that utilities must be regulated to enforce neutrality?

Given that "public utility" is a very broad term, I suppose all the companies providing ISP and infrastructure services for access by the public could be considered a utility. Whether or not it is appropriate to do so under FCC's Title II, or if neutrality is a good thing is a different matter.

My own view is leave it in Title I and cease meddling to impose "net neutrality".

Ah. I stand corrected: Obama can't fire the sonofabitch. But that changes nothing else I said. Some jackass from Forbes shilling for the cable companies, and your nebulous comments about 'meddling' aside, you've given no good reason that broadband data transport infrastructure is substantially different from any other telecommunications provider. All that separates them is a massive conflict of interest between their services, and conflict of interest was one of the primary reasons Title II exists.

Perhaps you can give me a good reason why, other than you like the idea of anything that smacks of "utility" being semi-nationalized, it should be heavily regulated under Title II? The reasons for utility regulation, as created by this 1934 statute, was to prevent a natural monopoly imposing monopolistic pricing and non-competitive policies on a public service. Since then, we have understood that such regulation, sooner or later, ends up being "regulatory capture", often doing far more harm than good.

Is this sector controlled by a 'natural monopoly'?

 

[Ford]

Since then, we have understood that such regulation, sooner or later, ends up being "regulatory capture", often doing far more harm than good.

Who is the "we" in "we have understood," Max?

 

[maxparrish]

"We" meaning those who follow regulatory economics. One reason there has been much deregulation (with different regulation) in transport, electricity, etc. is because between the 1930s and early 1980s economists realized they had it all wrong.

 

[Ford]

"We" meaning those who follow regulatory economics.

So armchair (economic) quarterbacks. Gotcha.

One reason there has been much deregulation (with different regulation) in transport, electricity, etc. is because between the 1930s and early 1980s economists realized they had it all wrong.

Well being an armchair economist yourself, you are no doubt aware that the actual professional economists don't always agree. In fact there are differing views (generally called "schools") which sharply disagree on any number of issues, so to say that "economists" (generally) all decided together that deregulation was the way to go seems a bit of a stretch.

To be sure, the economists who supported the deregulation would say "we all had it wrong," while the economists who thought the deregulation was a stupid idea and led to the cycle of boom and bust we've had since the 1980s would say "we tried to tell you, but you wouldn't listen."

No doubt economists of opposing camps will continue to battle it out until the end of time, but for now we've got two periods of roughly the same length (end of the 30s to the early 80s and early 80s to the early 10s) where both the "liberal" and "conservative" economic models have been tested. New Deal vs Trickle Down. Great Society vs Compassionate Conservatism. Glass-Steagall vs Gramm-Leach-Bliley.


I'm no expert (and neither are you), but I'm kinda leaning towards the formers rather than the latters. My opinion? Yep. But I'm not going to claim - as you have done - that all economists of all stripes support my opinion.

 

[dismal]

I don't know whether or not he has the power to do any of that. Do you have a statute you are relying on you can cite?



I suppose it depends on how you define "utility" and "neutrality"

I already defined utility for the purposes of this discussion, though I'd like to hear what you believe is an appropriate definition of 'utility' in this context and then how you would propose to regulate it.

Ah, yes, I keep forgetting you are the great arbiter of semantics. I do not doubt you can engineer a definition of "utility" that allows you to declare broadband is one. Nor do I doubt you are willing to assert that having defined something as a "utility" ends the debate over whether such thing should be "regulated".

I googled "utility definition" and found nothing remotely comparable to your definition on the first three pages. Experience tells me this fact will not alter your stance whatsoever, being the great decider of what words mean and all.

But it is my understanding that in our country relatively few people have accepted Jarhyn is the great decider of what words mean and what should and should not be regulated. We have some sort of representative democracy with laws and shit.

But, if you ask me my opinion, I don't doubt there are aspects of broadband service that should be regulated, though probably not at the federal level. I have spent my entire career around regulated industries. It is generally done at the state level with the feds getting involved to ensure things cross state lines efficiently.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

The exact quote is "Maybe, maybe not." it does not seem to be a statement of anything other than uncertainty.

So "conjecture" then?

No. Conjecture would indicate that an opinion or conclusion was offered. "Maybe, maybe not." offers no opinion or conclusion, it only provides a statement of absolute uncertainty.

I know this is very, very, very important.

In the grand scheme of things, all discussions on this board are very, very, very unimportant. If the point is one of keeping dismal honest, however, I would suggest the importance is somewhat higher.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I already defined utility for the purposes of this discussion, though I'd like to hear what you believe is an appropriate definition of 'utility' in this context and then how you would propose to regulate it.

Ah, yes, I keep forgetting you are the great arbiter of semantics. I do not doubt you can engineer a definition of "utility" that allows you to declare broadband is one. Nor do I doubt you are willing to assert that having defined something as a "utility" ends the debate over whether such thing should be "regulated".

I googled "utility definition" and found nothing remotely comparable to your definition on the first three pages. Experience tells me this fact will not alter your stance whatsoever, being the great decider of what words mean and all.

But it is my understanding that in our country relatively few people have accepted Jarhyn is the great decider of what words mean and what should and should not be regulated. We have some sort of representative democracy with laws and shit.

But, if you ask me my opinion, I don't doubt there are aspects of broadband service that should be regulated, though probably not at the federal level. I have spent my entire career around regulated industries. It is generally done at the state level with the feds getting involved to ensure things cross state lines efficiently.

Are you going to offer up the "correct" definition of utility, or continue to criticize the one presented, offering no alternative definition?

 

[Jarhyn]

I already defined utility for the purposes of this discussion, though I'd like to hear what you believe is an appropriate definition of 'utility' in this context and then how you would propose to regulate it.

Ah, yes, I keep forgetting you are the great arbiter of semantics. I do not doubt you can engineer a definition of "utility" that allows you to declare broadband is one. Nor do I doubt you are willing to assert that having defined something as a "utility" ends the debate over whether such thing should be "regulated".

I googled "utility definition" and found nothing remotely comparable to your definition on the first three pages. Experience tells me this fact will not alter your stance whatsoever, being the great decider of what words mean and all.

But it is my understanding that in our country relatively few people have accepted Jarhyn is the great decider of what words mean and what should and should not be regulated. We have some sort of representative democracy with laws and shit.

But, if you ask me my opinion, I don't doubt there are aspects of broadband service that should be regulated, though probably not at the federal level. I have spent my entire career around regulated industries. It is generally done at the state level with the feds getting involved to ensure things cross state lines efficiently.

So since none of your condescending claptrap actually goes beyond the indignation of seeing me provide a rational definition of 'utility' that, from its characteristics, shows immediately why it needs regulation, can you explain why such a thing as meets this definition does not warrant forced neutrality? Would you be more comfortable if I made up a be word 'farflenougen' to reference such a thing as I described? And would that make it any less wanting for regulation? It is not the name of a thing that means it must be so regulated, it is its characteristics. Trying to twist it into a semantic argument is purely misdirection. And what regulation is right for such a thing is right everywhere, because the rightness of a regulation stems from the nature of the thing being regulated, and the place of it has no bearing on that.

Woild you argue that a landline telephone company deserves the right to degrade calls from other providers, unless the called customer pays extra too? Because the Internet is really no different, and this is essentially what broadband providers are trying to do. The nature of the ethics behind it are not affected by the volume of the traffic.

 

[dismal]

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

The exact quote is "Maybe, maybe not." it does not seem to be a statement of anything other than uncertainty.

So "conjecture" then?

No. Conjecture would indicate that an opinion or conclusion was offered. "Maybe, maybe not." offers no opinion or conclusion, it only provides a statement of absolute uncertainty.

Hmm, I would have thought "conjecture" would have captured this nicely.

Conjecture
n. noun
1. Opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. An opinion or conclusion based on guesswork.

What word would you go with that you feel works better?

 

[dismal]

For those asking for a definition of "utlity":

https://www.google.com/#q=utility+definition

 

[dismal]

Ah, yes, I keep forgetting you are the great arbiter of semantics. I do not doubt you can engineer a definition of "utility" that allows you to declare broadband is one. Nor do I doubt you are willing to assert that having defined something as a "utility" ends the debate over whether such thing should be "regulated".

I googled "utility definition" and found nothing remotely comparable to your definition on the first three pages. Experience tells me this fact will not alter your stance whatsoever, being the great decider of what words mean and all.

But it is my understanding that in our country relatively few people have accepted Jarhyn is the great decider of what words mean and what should and should not be regulated. We have some sort of representative democracy with laws and shit.

But, if you ask me my opinion, I don't doubt there are aspects of broadband service that should be regulated, though probably not at the federal level. I have spent my entire career around regulated industries. It is generally done at the state level with the feds getting involved to ensure things cross state lines efficiently.

So since none of your condescending claptrap actually goes beyond the indignation of seeing me provide a rational definition of 'utility' that, from its characteristics, shows immediately why it needs regulation, can you explain why such a thing as meets this definition does not warrant forced neutrality? Would you be more comfortable if I made up a be word 'farflenougen' to reference such a thing as I described? And would that make it any less wanting for regulation? It is not the name of a thing that means it must be so regulated, it is its characteristics. Trying to twist it into a semantic argument is purely misdirection. And what regulation is right for such a thing is right everywhere, because the rightness of a regulation stems from the nature of the thing being regulated, and the place of it has no bearing on that.

Woild you argue that a landline telephone company deserves the right to degrade calls from other providers, unless the called customer pays extra too? Because the Internet is really no different, and this is essentially what broadband providers are trying to do. The nature of the ethics behind it are not affected by the volume of the traffic.

The utilities I am familiar with (gas pipelines, oil pipelines, electric power) do offer certain customers preferred service.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, since this is the closest thing to a relevant reply so far, how about "suggestion"? "conjecture"?

We may want to head off the 20 pages of posts debating this important distinction right here.

The exact quote is "Maybe, maybe not." it does not seem to be a statement of anything other than uncertainty.

So "conjecture" then?

No. Conjecture would indicate that an opinion or conclusion was offered. "Maybe, maybe not." offers no opinion or conclusion, it only provides a statement of absolute uncertainty.

Hmm, I would have thought "conjecture" would have captured this nicely.

Conjecture
n. noun
1. Opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. An opinion or conclusion based on guesswork.

What word would you go with that you feel works better?

I have already been using it: 'uncertainty'.

Would you care to enlighten me as to what opinion, judgement, or conclusion is offered by the words "maybe, maybe not"?

 

[KeepTalking]

For those asking for a definition of "utlity":

https://www.google.com/#q=utility+definition

Not that I am defending Jarhyn's definition of 'utility' (I am actually having trouble locating where an actual definition was offered by Jarhyn), but one would need to dig deeper into definition #2, "public utility", to find the actual definition of what is being discussed.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

For those asking for a definition of "utlity":

https://www.google.com/#q=utility+definition

Okay since you refuse to actually offer up a definition other than utility is "2) a public utility", then Jarhyn's definition stands.