quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I support this decision and contrary to the repubs objections (and no votes) this will preserve innovation and competition by NOT pricing them out and creating new and higher barriers for that to happen which could have under various pricing schemes proffered to current investors.

"The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept."

ALl of the talk of this being overly broad govt. regulation as usual is bullshit. What the current big oligoploly wanted was also as usual...more money by creating a fast lane for businesses at a premium and s slow lane for the homeowner with the homeowner suffering from lack of capacity the companies would never invest in unless driven to it by what...being now a utility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I support this decision and contrary to the repubs objections (and no votes) this will preserve innovation and competition by NOT pricing them out and creating new and higher barriers for that to happen which could have under various pricing schemes proffered to current investors.

"The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept."

ALl of the talk of this being overly broad govt. regulation as usual is bullshit. What the current big oligoploly wanted was also as usual...more money by creating a fast lane for businesses at a premium and s slow lane for the homeowner with the homeowner suffering from lack of capacity the companies would never invest in unless driven to it by what...being now a utility.

You are right , government control always leads to an explosion of innovation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I support this decision and contrary to the repubs objections (and no votes) this will preserve innovation and competition by NOT pricing them out and creating new and higher barriers for that to happen which could have under various pricing schemes proffered to current investors.

"The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept."

ALl of the talk of this being overly broad govt. regulation as usual is bullshit. What the current big oligoploly wanted was also as usual...more money by creating a fast lane for businesses at a premium and s slow lane for the homeowner with the homeowner suffering from lack of capacity the companies would never invest in unless driven to it by what...being now a utility.

You are right , government control always leads to an explosion of innovation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I support this decision and contrary to the repubs objections (and no votes) this will preserve innovation and competition by NOT pricing them out and creating new and higher barriers for that to happen which could have under various pricing schemes proffered to current investors.

"The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept."

ALl of the talk of this being overly broad govt. regulation as usual is bullshit. What the current big oligoploly wanted was also as usual...more money by creating a fast lane for businesses at a premium and s slow lane for the homeowner with the homeowner suffering from lack of capacity the companies would never invest in unless driven to it by what...being now a utility.

You are right , government control always leads to an explosion of innovation.

Any so-called innovation without this, would have been paid for by Harry homeowner up front and some say is already happening with average bills creeping up to $70-$80/mo. [It] will still be that way but only as a matter of return on capital...no longer oligopoly profits and then...only maybe.

Besides...tell me about all of the innovations we will miss now because of this.

Europe for example, has competition, twice the spectrum and all at 1/2 the cost...what a ripoff their reg. are hey ?

Get a grip, use all of the buzzwords you want. In America it is greed and profits and why we can't have ala carte TV cable or sat. We are forced to take 100 fucking channels we don't watch...and pay big for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

Four million Americans wrote to the FCC to make it happen. Very proud. All internet companies are created equal, well done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I support this decision and contrary to the repubs objections (and no votes) this will preserve innovation and competition by NOT pricing them out and creating new and higher barriers for that to happen which could have under various pricing schemes proffered to current investors.

"The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept."

ALl of the talk of this being overly broad govt. regulation as usual is bullshit. What the current big oligoploly wanted was also as usual...more money by creating a fast lane for businesses at a premium and s slow lane for the homeowner with the homeowner suffering from lack of capacity the companies would never invest in unless driven to it by what...being now a utility.

You are right , government control always leads to an explosion of innovation.

Funny, I seem to recall said government control lead to the creation of the Internet. You know, that concept your using to make this post to which I'm replying to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Four million Americans wrote to the FCC to make it happen. Very proud. All internet companies are created equal, well done.

Well I share your sentiments but too bad it didn't stay that way. They've so consolidated the market have such market power, the govt. needed to step in.
Think about it, how do these ISP's have the power they do ? Out here it's Cox and Century Link and that's about it, so for a phone (land line) and Internet, it's $120/mo. That's a rip off.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Hey Bama, isn't the Post Office KNOWN for its innovations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Four million Americans wrote to the FCC to make it happen. Very proud. All internet companies are created equal, well done.

Well I share your sentiments but too bad it didn't stay that way. They've so consolidated the market have such market power, the govt. needed to step in.
Think about it, how do these ISP's have the power they do ? Out here it's Cox and Century Link and that's about it, so for a phone (land line) and Internet, it's $120/mo. That's a rip off.

Really? There are no other options between Cox and Century Link?

I can get a cable provider (but, pretty much just one option, thanks to government) here to provide my phone and internet, if I so choose (I have). I can get AT&T (may be others, I haven't looked at any other phone companies) to provide my TV, phone and internet, too. I can get my TV and internet from a satellite dish company, too.

You might want to look into why there are only Cox and Century Link. It might be because of government reg's, not from the lack of government reg's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Any so-called innovation without this, would have been paid for by Harry homeowner up front and some say is already happening with average bills creeping up to $70-$80/mo. [It] will still be that way but only as a matter of return on capital...no longer oligopoly profits and then...only maybe.

Besides...tell me about all of the innovations we will miss now because of this.

Europe for example, has competition, twice the spectrum and all at 1/2 the cost...what a ripoff their reg. are hey ?

quote:

As an American academic living in Europe, I’m often surprised by the cavalier pronouncements that the EU has more choices, lower costs and faster speeds in broadband and therefore the U.S. should follow the European regulatory model. A number of respected studies show the opposite is true.

For starters, consider the state of competition. Americans have greater choice of broadband technologies and speeds than nearly anywhere in the world, including in the EU. Networks capable of providing 100 Mbps speeds reach 85 percent of U.S. homes, whereas just over half of European homes can access speeds of 30 Mbps or greater. Seventy-four percent of Europeans rely on DSL technology – largely because Europe lacks competition among different broadband technologies – whereas only 34 percent of Americans do. Today, the U.S. has roughly twice the percentage of homes with access to advanced fiber-optic networks as does the EU.

The U.S. also leads on wireless broadband. Only 26 percent of Europeans live in areas where they can get the faster wireless 4G LTE networks; 95 percent of Americans are not only covered but most can choose from multiple 4G LTE providers.

The U.S. leadership in broadband is attributable to a bipartisan effort in the U.S. to incentivize investment in better and more advanced networks. Since 1996, the U.S. decidedly moved to a “facilities-based competition” model where ISPs own the underlying networks and are motivated to invest in them in order to avoid losing customers to their competitors. By contrast, Europe’s “leased-access” approach where ISPs lease transmission lines at regulated rates from incumbent telecom firms, have no incentives to invest in the underlying facility.

It is unarguable that the U.S. policy approach has incentivized investment more effectively. Since 1996, American broadband providers spent $1.2 trillion building and upgrading wired and wireless networks, laying thousands of miles of fiber optic cable, erecting cell towers and increasing capacity to meet consumer demands. Per capita investment in networks in the U.S. – perhaps the most important indicator of future vitality in the broadband industry – is nearly double that of the EU. Americans comprise just 4 percent of the world’s population but enjoy 25 percent of its broadband investment annually.

It seems strange that some argue that we emulate Europe while the EU is in fact abandoning its own model. European Commission VP Neelie Kroes has announced a Digital Single Market initiative to “burn the red tape,” increase investment and move towards the facilities-based model of the U.S.

But none of this seems persuasive to “Europe is better” detractors. Some point singularly to report by the New America Foundation (NAF) that purports to claim that Americans pay more for inferior broadband service. But the NAF’s findings are contradicted by far more comprehensive reports from the OECD, the ITU, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and others that find that the U.S. has more choice among competing technologies and compares favorably on speed and pricing...

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I support this decision and contrary to the repubs objections (and no votes) this will preserve innovation and competition by NOT pricing them out and creating new and higher barriers for that to happen which could have under various pricing schemes proffered to current investors.

"The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept."

ALl of the talk of this being overly broad govt. regulation as usual is bullshit. What the current big oligoploly wanted was also as usual...more money by creating a fast lane for businesses at a premium and s slow lane for the homeowner with the homeowner suffering from lack of capacity the companies would never invest in unless driven to it by what...being now a utility.

You are right , government control always leads to an explosion of innovation.

Funny, I seem to recall said government control lead to the creation of the Internet. You know, that concept your using to make this post to which I'm replying to?

Actually, the Internet is what it is today in spite of...not because of...the government control.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/07/24/did-government-invent-internet

And for a more middle of the road view:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/the-internet-we-built-that.html?pagewanted=all&referrer=

quote:

ORIGINAL: the Stossel
The government did create Arpanet, the world's first decentralized computer network.

quote:

ORIGINAL: the Stossel
In 1969, Arpanet linked 4 computers. Over the next three years, Email and instant messaging were invented, but they weren't useful to you, because the government's Arpanet linked only 37 computers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: the Stossel
In 1995, government fully privatized their network. That's when the current internet started to flourish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: the Stossel
Yes, President Obama, government invented the Arpanet. But what happened next shows how government fails, but individuals succeed. Government enacted barriers to private-sector research, and took decades before it allowed all of us to benefit from an important new technology. Once it was privatized, individuals - not government -created the internet that we know today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Any so-called innovation without this, would have been paid for by Harry homeowner up front and some say is already happening with average bills creeping up to $70-$80/mo. [It] will still be that way but only as a matter of return on capital...no longer oligopoly profits and then...only maybe.

Besides...tell me about all of the innovations we will miss now because of this.

Europe for example, has competition, twice the spectrum and all at 1/2 the cost...what a ripoff their reg. are hey ?

That may be the mantra, but it is far from the truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
I support this decision and contrary to the repubs objections (and no votes) this will preserve innovation and competition by NOT pricing them out and creating new and higher barriers for that to happen which could have under various pricing schemes proffered to current investors.

"The new rules, approved 3 to 2 along party lines, are intended to ensure that no content is blocked and that the Internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for Internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept."

ALl of the talk of this being overly broad govt. regulation as usual is bullshit. What the current big oligoploly wanted was also as usual...more money by creating a fast lane for businesses at a premium and s slow lane for the homeowner with the homeowner suffering from lack of capacity the companies would never invest in unless driven to it by what...being now a utility.

You are right , government control always leads to an explosion of innovation.

Funny, I seem to recall said government control lead to the creation of the Internet. You know, that concept your using to make this post to which I'm replying to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Hey Bama, isn't the Post Office KNOWN for its innovations?

Hey, Aylee, aren't conservatives and libertarians KNOWN for their intelligence and innovation?

No, not really....

Being obedient, mindless, uninformed, drones, they are.....