Speak Out: The battle for Net Neutrality and why YOU should support it

Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:22 AM:

What Net Neutrality *is not*: government control of the internet.

In fact, quite the opposite, it ensures the consumer has full control of what information they receive on the internet.

Without Net Neutrality, internet providers can determine which information you receive.

Charter wants to give it's news service priority and slow down any other source? Not a problem. AT&T decides that the New York Times and CNN are free to everyone, but Newsmax and Fox News are an additional $25 a month? Perfectly fine.

Without Net Neutrality, smaller sources of information (the SE Missourian, for instance) could totally be priced out of the market. The NYT or WaPo might be able to afford a $25 million premium from each internet provider, but can an upstart news company or local paper?

Anyone who links the media is controlled by "liberal elites" should be very concerned about giving "the media" power to determine what kind of information you receive.

Replies (130)

  • *

    A lot of hype here. Not unusual.

    The internet has been around for a few decades now. And the lefts love of "net neutrality" is only 2 years old. Logic dictates that the internet has grown rapidly and successfully without the government regulation that progressives and Obama want.

    Should printing presses be regulated? Do all newspaper subscriptions / services charge the same rate?

    The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has long regulated anti-competitive moves by all ISP's (Internet Service Providers). In fact, "the FCC was never able to find any substantial violations of net neutrality in a decade of investigations and despite the absence of rules enforceable by the agency, an inconvenient truth that forced the Commission to repeatedly characterize its net neutrality efforts as “prophylactic.”"

    I'm sure as a constant supporter of government control in our lives the notion of losing such progressive control is the root of your anxiety and hype. But you need only ask the 100's of conservative groups that were denied tax exempt status by Obama and his IRS thugs about the danger of government control of any information. Stalin loved his control of media. So did Mao. And Hitler. And other leftist progressives.

    Kill the FCC's control over content and internet regulation.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:49 AM
  • And the lefts love of "net neutrality" is only 2 years old. -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:49 AM

    This shouldn't be a left/right issue, so let's not go there. Net neutrality has been an issue for some time, even if you haven't paid attention.

    Logic dictates that the internet has grown rapidly and successfully without the government regulation that progressives and Obama want.-- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:49 AM

    Net neutrality isn't government regulation. In fact, it's the opposite: it allows the market to regulate what content is provided.

    The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has long regulated anti-competitive moves by all ISP's (Internet Service Providers). The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has long regulated anti-competitive moves by all ISP's (Internet Service Providers). In fact, "the FCC was never able to find any substantial violations of net neutrality in a decade of investigations and despite the absence of rules enforceable by the agency, an inconvenient truth that forced the Commission to repeatedly characterize its net neutrality efforts as “prophylactic.”"

    Anti-competitive moves by ISPs are unrelated.

    In fact, "the FCC was never able to find any substantial violations of net neutrality in a decade of investigations and despite the absence of rules enforceable by the agency, an inconvenient truth that forced the Commission to repeatedly characterize its net neutrality efforts as “prophylactic.”"The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has long regulated anti-competitive moves by all ISP's (Internet Service Providers). In fact, "the FCC was never able to find any substantial violations of net neutrality in a decade of investigations and despite the absence of rules enforceable by the agency, an inconvenient truth that forced the Commission to repeatedly characterize its net neutrality efforts as “prophylactic.”"

    Excellent! Then codifying net neutrality isn't an issue, is it?

    However, these examples seem to disagree with that assertion: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-histor...

    ...the danger of government control of any information.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:49 AM

    Please explain how net neutrality would allow "government control" of information.

    Kill the FCC's control over content and internet regulation.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:49 AM

    I completely, 100% agree. However, that's not the issue, net neutrality, i.e. the idea that ISPs must treat all content equally, is.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:03 AM
  • *

    Net neutrality isn't government regulation. In fact, it's the opposite:-- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:03 AM

    Oh! So we don't need Obama's FCC Net Neutrality since the government isn't going to regulate? Want to rephrase that talking point again?

    Now "government regulation" isn't "government regulation"?

    ===

    "Excellent! Then codifying net neutrality isn't an issue, is it?" -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:03 AM

    So you're for regulations that you agree aren't necessary. Now THAT'S liberal logic if ever I've seen it. Common sense - not talking points - is all I need to understand what is going on here. Just look at your rebuttal above

    1) Government regulation by Obama isn't government regulation

    2) There is no evidence of net neutrality issues but we still must regulate it.

    Ugh.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM
  • So you're for regulations that you agree aren't necessary.-- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM

    Aren't necessary *today*. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure all content on the internet remains equal for the future.

    Now THAT'S liberal logic if ever I've seen it. Common sense - not talking points - is all I need to understand what is going on here.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM

    Again, why do you have to make this left/right or liberal/conservative? It seems like it's a lazy attempt try to discredit those who disagree with you.

    How about we stay on the topic of pro- or anti-Net Neutrality

    1) Government regulation by Obama isn't government regulation-- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM

    I said no such thing and you know I said no such thing.

    2) There is no evidence of net neutrality issues but we still must regulate it.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM

    There is evidence of net neutrality issues (see previous post) and capitalism would suggest that those issues will become even more and more prevalent without making Net Neutrality the law of the land.

    Ugh.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM

    Who do you want deciding what information you should receive on the internet?

    Charter?

    AT&T?

    Google?

    or Doug?

    I'd like Doug to decide what information he gets and Mike to decide what information he gets and each individual to have the same option. The only way to guarantee that is to require ISPs to abide by net neutrality.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:28 AM
  • *

    Charter? AT&T? Google? or Doug? -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:28 AM

    Another straw man - so predictable of you. Oh - and you left out the federal government. Which was proven under Obama to decide what information you should receive with his IRS scandal against political opponents and would have loved to controlled information on the net. Just like you.

    All I need to know about this issue is this...

    a) you support it. You. The person who has had people banned for free speech on this very forum, who has stated if they had absolute power they would ban several posters, and who called the FBI over a joke about Obama that wasn't even threatening.

    b) George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama and Mike Sneller support net neutrality. Enough reason for anyone of logic and reason to be concerned.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:06 PM
  • Another straw man - so predictable of you.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:06 PM

    Except that's not a strawman. That is the exact scenario that could happen if ISPs decide to abandon net neutrality.

    Oh - and you left out the federal government.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:06 PM

    Exactly, because net neutrality does not give the federal government power to decide what content you receive.

    All I need to know about this issue is this...

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:06 PM

    You didn't mention anything a about what net neutrality is and what the consequences would be ISPs decide to abandon it.

    To me, those are much more important to know that who supports or opposes it. In fact, who supports or opposes something should have little to no bearing on how an intelligent person develops opinions.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:12 PM
  • *

    It appears to me that government cannot find where it is broken. Then why do we need government to fix it. That has been my position from the git go on Net Neutrality and I have no changed my mind.

    Adding just one more layer of government is not only unnecessary, it will be expensive and possibly abusive. I believe Doug touched on the abusive part of government by Obama and his meddling with the IRS to issue tax free status to Liberal and Conservative groups equally.

    I believe Net Neutrality is the back door to future taxation and charging for Internet Usage.

    For God's sake leave government out of one segment of our lives.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:13 PM
  • It appears to me that government cannot find where it is broken. Then why do we need government to fix it. That has been my position from the git go on Net Neutrality and I have no changed my mind.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:13 PM

    Nothing is broken and no one is suggesting anything needs to be "fixed."

    Net Neutrality simply requires all internet content to be treated the same by ISPs.

    Adding just one more layer of government is not only unnecessary-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:13 PM

    Net Neutrality would not add another layer of government; it would be enforced by the FCC, which already exists.

    I believe Net Neutrality is the back door to future taxation and charging for Internet Usage.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:13 PM

    How so? What part of Net Neutrality would add any possibility of taxation that doesn't already exist?

    Charging for Internet Usage already exists. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs could charge more for "premium plans" so you might have to pay more to get the information you want.

    Should you have to pay more so you can get news from sources other than the New York Times?

    For God's sake leave government out of one segment of our lives.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:13 PM

    This has nothing to do with the government being in your life. In fact, Net Neutrality has no direct affect on the end user; it regulates ISPs only, and prevents the ISPs from insinuating themselves into that segment of your life.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:26 PM
  • *

    Anything can be found on the net . "Net Neutrality" is only one more Political device to divide the Peoples -- Obama good , Trump bad or (D) good , (R) bad and vice-versa

    It's the WWW -- World Wide Web .... not USA , United States America .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:30 PM
  • *

    Why the cap "YOU" in the title of the thread ?

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:31 PM
  • Why the cap "YOU" in the title of the thread ?

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:31 PM

    To emphasize that the typical Speak Out forums reader (Doug and Ralph, for instance) has as much, if not more, reason to be concerned if the "net" is no longer "neutral."

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:41 PM
  • *

    This has nothing to do with the government being in your life. In fact, Net Neutrality has no direct affect on the end user; it regulates ISPs only, and prevents the ISPs from insinuating themselves into that segment of your life.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:26 PM

    I call BS. If the government had no interest in regulating they would not be involved, and the end user as in all things ends up paying the price. Want to make a wager that if this is made a fact of life that the FCC will not either, hire more employees, create a new department within the FCC or a new regulatory agency outside of the FCC will not be created to regulate this with 10 years after it has grown like another piglet of government.

    It is not broken, I believe you have admitted that. So if it is not broken let's not fix it. Time enough to fix it when it breaks.

    I do not take my car and have the tire shop change the air in all of the tires periodically, do you? Personally I wait until a tire starts leaking air to have it repaired.

    Creating more government for reasons that just might happen in the future but do not exist today is why we have such a bloated big governemt to support in this country.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM
  • Anything can be found on the net .-- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:30 PM

    Today it can. Without requiring Net Neutrality, it might not be in the future.

    "Net Neutrality" is only one more Political device to divide the Peoples -- Obama good , Trump bad or (D) good , (R) bad and vice-versa-- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:30 PM

    That's part of the point I am making...it shouldn't be a political device. Everyone who uses the internet should demand that whatever content they choose to view be treated equally to other content. Whether that content is the mainstream media, political opinions, or conspiracy theories, ISPs should determine what is most important.

    It's the WWW -- World Wide Web .... not USA , United States America .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:30 PM

    And it should stay that way...

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM
  • *

    It's a solution looking for a problem that has never existed and may never exist.

    What the IRS did to target enemies of Obama with "government regulation" was criminal. And years after Obama got elected to his 2nd term what was known to many at the time finally was admitted to by the IRS.

    And you - the biggest banner and professed desire to ban - would not be someone I would trust on any issue of free speech or "neutrality". Ever.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:46 PM
  • I call BS. If the government had no interest in regulating they would not be involved,-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM

    There's a big difference between regulating content and regulating ISPs.

    and the end user as in all things ends up paying the price.

    And that's why Net Neutrality is so important...so the end user DOESN'T end up paying a price.

    Want to make a wager that if this is made a fact of life that the FCC will not either, hire more employees, create a new department within the FCC or a new regulatory agency outside of the FCC will not be created to regulate this with 10 years after it has grown like another piglet of government.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM

    Why would it?

    It is not broken, I believe you have admitted that. So if it is not broken let's not fix it. Time enough to fix it when it breaks.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM

    True enough. You're the only one talking about "fixing" something, though. Net Neutrality isn't meant to fix a problem, rather to create an environment in which you are guaranteed to have to choice of information.

    Creating more government for reasons that just might happen in the future but do not exist today is why we have such a bloated big governemt to support in this country.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM

    Again, you're the only one talking about creating more government. Net Neutrality isn't about the government. It's about you and your right to choose.

    Like I asked Doug, who should choose what information you get? AT&T? Charter? or Ralph?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:50 PM
  • It's a solution looking for a problem that has never existed and may never exist.-- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:46 PM

    It's not a solution to anything.

    And you - the biggest banner and professed desire to ban - would not be someone I would trust on any issue of free speech or "neutrality". Ever.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:46 PM

    Why are you unable to have any discussion without making about the person you're speaking with? Net Neutrality has nothing to do with me.

    Net Neutrality is the idea that all information is equal, whether that information is a VOIP service, television streaming service, news media, or anything else found on the internet.

    Like I said in my opening post, anyone who thinks media is controlled by the "liberal elite" should be more concerned than anyone about the prospect of losing net neutrality.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:53 PM
  • Looks like you're causing problems by asking hard questions.

    It's most likely you'll not get an answer to the "who should choose" because it appears they don't understand it.

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:58 PM
  • *

    It's the WWW -- World Wide Web .... not USA , United States America .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:30 PM

    And it should stay that way...

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:43 PM

    ..........................

    How can the USA control the entire World's internet ? USA Laws do not control the entire World . Hackers , white hat or black hat , will get around any firewall or system mechanics they want by creating or duplicating and editing their own hosts -- ask HBO , NSA , Pro-Sports , WikiLeaks, etc , etc... As long as there are satellites , this issue too will pass . Every storm runs out of rain ..

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:58 PM
  • How can the USA control the entire World's internet ?-- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:58 PM

    It can't. However, ISPs can control what information USA residents receive if net neutrality doesn't exist.

    USA Laws do not control the entire World . Hackers , white hat or black hat , will get around any firewall or system mechanics they want by creating or duplicating and editing their own hosts -- ask HBO , NSA , Pro-Sports , WikiLeaks, etc , etc... As long as there are satellites , this issue too will pass . Every storm runs out of rain ..

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:58 PM

    If ISPs are allowed to determine what data receives priority, nothing you just said will matter.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:03 PM
  • It's most likely you'll not get an answer to the "who should choose" because it appears they don't understand it.

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:58 PM

    I agree; I don't think they understand Net Neutrality or what the debate is about at all.

    That's why I keep bringing up the "liberal media." For people who are convinced liberals control the media, they don't seem to have an issue with "the media" determining what internet content they should receive.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:06 PM
  • *

    Here - let me educate you on this since you've made claims that don't align with the democrat head of the FEC when Obama pushed this. Listen to what a progressive like you said - controlling content:

    "Ms. Ravel (FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel - DEMOCRAT) said she fears that in trying to keep the Internet open for bloggers, they’ve instead created a loophole for major political players to escape some scrutiny.

    “Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” said FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel in a statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”

    ===

    AKA - we need to regulate and control blogger content. You've failed in your attempt to redefine government regulation as not regulation.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:07 PM
  • *

    It's most likely you'll not get an answer to the "who should choose" because it appears they don't understand it. -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 12:58 PM

    That answer has been given repeatedly. Maybe you haven't gotten it yet in Marble Hill. It should arrive shortly.

    The answer that you don't want to acknowledge is this - the government should NOT choose. Is that hard for your partisan brain to interpret? It's been stated repeatedly.

    It's precious that the two big "banners" Sneller and Lettau on this forum are for this. All I need to know.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:10 PM
  • -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:07 PM

    That quote was not in relation to Net Neutrality at all. It was in relation to a completely different issue:

    http://ijr.com/2014/10/192454-fec-democrats-move-regulate-internet-political-spe...

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:13 PM
  • the government should NOT choose. Is that hard for your partisan brain to interpret? It's been stated repeatedly.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:10 PM

    And I've not seen anyone disagree with that sentiment.

    The question of who SHOULD choose remains, though. You? Or your ISP?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:14 PM
  • *

    It's about the government, it's not about the government, it's about the government, it's not about the government. Sounds like plucking pedals off a flower, saying she loves me, she loves me not. The end answer will be equally useless.

    Once the camel's nose is in the tent it will find all kinds of things to regulate,

    It will cost a fortune to regulate before it is over. Just look at Obamacare, it was promised it would bring down the cost of healthcare and it has done just the opposite by raising it astronomically. I do not trust the government. Things are fine the way they are and until that changes let's not meddle with it to our own detriment.

    It would be like reprimanding your child every morning before sending him/her off to school. Sooner or later they will figure out a way to reward themselves to equal the punishment they are taking.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:16 PM
  • *

    I agree; I don't think they understand Net Neutrality or what the debate is about at all.

    That's why I keep bringing up the "liberal media." For people who are convinced liberals control the media, they don't seem to have an issue with "the media" determining what internet content they should receive.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:06 PM

    About what I would expect from a couple of Socialistic/Communistic oriented Democrats. Nobody understands except you. You might stop, think and realize it is you who follows the false Gods like Barack Hussein Obama.

    *******************************************************************************

    The question of who SHOULD choose remains, though. You? Or your ISP?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:14 PM

    As in anything else, I choose who or what I buy into. I understand that in most cases it is their vineyard and they have the choice to stomp the grapes anyway they please.... but I don't have to drink the sour juice.

    Let the consumer not the government make the decision to who they listen to. The NFL is finding out right now that the fan is the king, not some petty millionaire football player with an ego problem .

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:31 PM
  • Nobody understands except you-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:31 PM

    No one said anything of the sort. I don't think YOU understand; that doesn't mean I don't think anyone else but me understands.

    As in anything else, I choose who or what I buy into. I understand that in most cases it is their vineyard and they have the choice to stomp the grapes anyway they please.... but I don't have to drink the sour juice.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:31 PM

    But the thing with the internet is you do have to "drink the juice."

    Let the consumer not the government make the decision to who they listen to.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:31 PM

    Those aren't the options with Net Neutrality. I want the consumer to be able to decide who they listen to, but the ISP.

    In no scenario regarding Net Neutrality does the government decide anything. The fact that you continue to bring it up is one of the things that leads me to say you don't understand.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:51 PM
  • Since no one is jumping to choose between choosing for themselves what content they receive or letting the ISPs decide, perhaps another question will elicit more responses.

    Why wouldn't ISPs charge more to prioritize certain content? Don't they owe it to their shareholders to make as much money as possible; why would they ignore a source of revenue?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:05 PM
  • *

    Since no one is jumping to choose between choosing for themselves what content they receive or letting the ISPs decide, perhaps another question will elicit more responses. -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:05 PM

    I can always choose what content I want to receive. Are you not capable of such?

    I have cellular communications, I have internet, I have satellite, etc. If I don't like MSNBC, I can turn it off. This happens all the time. Many liberal cable companies don't offer FOX news. I don't like it, but I don't need some progressive bunch like you, Lettau, Obama and George Soros deciding this.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:08 PM
  • I can always choose what content I want to receive. Are you not capable of such?

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:08 PM

    Yes, and I want to make sure it stays that way.

    Many liberal cable companies don't offer FOX news. -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:08 PM

    I'm not sure that's true, but that's exactly my point. The cable company chooses whether their customers can watch Fox News, not the consumer.

    Do you want internet to be the same way?

    I don't. I want you to determine which news source(s) you want, not some media conglomerate.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:21 PM
  • *

    But the thing with the internet is you do have to "drink the juice."

    Say what? Who is going to put a gun to my head and make me deal with anyone who doesn't provide me with the content I want or need. What YOU fail to understand is, when people quit supporting the advertisers, they find a different place to put their money and if nobody follows an ISP provider they will fail to exist. Have you never had pop up ads show up when you are using the internet? It is in the best interest of the ISP providers to provide what people want and need. I simply have more faith in the free market than I do in government interference in commerce. And that is precisely what this is and it will be creeping and ever more intrusive. YOU are the one who does not understand. If you had not spent about half of your life until now in formal education listening to liberal professors you might have a better insight on what the real world is all about.

    *******************************************************************************

    Let the consumer not the government make the decision to who they listen to.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:31 PM

    Those aren't the options with Net Neutrality. I want the consumer to be able to decide who they listen to, but the ISP.

    In no scenario regarding Net Neutrality does the government decide anything. The fact that you continue to bring it up is one of the things that leads me to say you don't understand.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:51 PM

    Look Junior, I have spent several more years dealing with life's little issues getting a good portion of my education from real life instead of a text book written by someone who has spent little to no time out where the rubber meets the road. I have watched the government grow into the ridiculous over sized monstrosity we have today because too many were not paying attention and believed every thing some talking head told them to believe. Like YOU!

    Mark my words kid, the government is involved and will be ever more involved once they get this passed and into practice the way they want it.

    Now rail on, I am through hammering on this subject. I will do my talking to those who may or may not have the power to push this over on us.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:25 PM
  • Say what? Who is going to put a gun to my head and make me deal with anyone who doesn't provide me with the content I want or need.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:25 PM

    You don't have much of an option.

    What YOU fail to understand is, when people quit supporting the advertisers, they find a different place to put their money and if nobody follows an ISP provider they will fail to exist.

    I'm not sure how you're connecting advertisers, "putting their money" and ISPs.

    Have you never had pop up ads show up when you are using the internet? It is in the best interest of the ISP providers to provide what people want and need.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:25 PM

    If the consumers have options.

    I simply have more faith in the free market than I do in government interference in commerce. -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:25 PM

    The market isn't free though and won't be without enforcing Net Neutrality. The barriers to entry for new providers are so high, that true market freedom isn't possible.

    you might have a better insight on what the real world is all about.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:25 PM

    I'm talking about the real world. Net neutrality, in the real world, isn't about government control of information. In the real world, ISPs are driven solely by profit, not because they love information.

    I have spent several more years dealing with life's little issues getting a good portion of my education from real life instead of a text book written by someone who has spent little to no time out where the rubber meets the road.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:25 PM

    You're completely ignoring the real world, though. In the real world (cable TV is a great example), companies want to make as much money as possible. If that means not allowing you to go to Newsmax because they don't pay the "toll," then the ISP doesn't care.

    That's basic capitalism, in the real world.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:34 PM
  • *

    "Many liberal cable companies don't offer FOX news. -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:08 PM

    I'm not sure that's true, but that's exactly my point. The cable company chooses whether their customers can watch Fox News, not the consumer."

    In spite of what I said, I will answer this.

    If the cable company does not supply the content you want you put up a satellite dish and there are more than one to choose from. And your sub-division, your city or no one else can tell you that you may not use a satellite company because of their rules or covenants. I live in an apartment. My choice at this point in life. I have the local cable service as a part of my lease. I was told, if I want satellite I can have it installed, but would be responsible for roof or other damage. I understand that. If I choose to live on my own plot of dirt, I assure you I will have the content I want or change suppliers.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:35 PM
  • If the cable company does not supply the content you want you put up a satellite dish and there are more than one to choose from.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:35 PM

    So you have only 3 choices, and that's for something as unimportant, comparatively, as pay tv.

    Most people don't have any more choices for internet service, and the number of "channels" is almost infinite. How many of those will your upstart news service be able to pay to get it's reporting to consumers? Will the consumer really have a choice?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:47 PM
  • Third scenario:

    I start a video-streaming service. It's technologically superior to any streaming service out there.

    However, Netflix pays $50 million a year to get priority placement. Since I don't have that kind of money, I am pushed to back of the line, and anyone who tries to use my service has constant buffering and sound issues.

    Is the market really free? Does the consumer really have a choice?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:50 PM
  • *

    "So you have only 3 choices,"

    Four that I am aware of, maybe more I haven't explored it.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 2:53 PM
  • Might help...

    How to Explain Why Net Neutrality Matters to Your [SO conservative] Friends Who Don't Get It

    "Last week, the Federal Communications Commission announced plans to dismantle net neutrality, potentially giving internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T free reign to throttle speeds, block websites they don’t like, and carve the internet up into slow and fast lanes.

    That nightmare scenario alone should be enough to convince most people that net neutrality is worth saving. But if you’re struggling to convince a friend, neighbor or coworker that the FCC is about to make a huge mistake, here are a few talking point to help you make your argument.

    1. “Think of it like cable...”

    This is the most relatable way to explain the important of net neutrality. Most people have paid for TV at some point, and understand the way cable providers force you to pay extra for channels you don’t want just to get HBO or follow your favorite sports team.

    These new rules could do the same thing to the internet by carving it up into bundles. Love Netflix? You might have to pay extra for a bunch of other streaming services you’re not interested in, too. The same goes for social media apps like Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

    If you need a visual aid, use this image of internet package options in Portugal. It’s missing a bit of context, but still gets the point across pretty accurately.

    2. “The internet should be treated as a utility, just like electricity or water”

    You might not physically need the internet to survive, but for most of us it’s become an absolute necessity. We rely on the internet for work, to communicate with family and friends, and to organize our lives.

    Putting such an important tool entirely in the hands of companies that care about profits above all else is a dangerous idea. You wouldn’t let the free market decide the price of tap water or electricity without any regulation. So why should we let it decide to fate of the internet?

    3. “Net Neutrality protects us from online censorship”

    A key aspect of current net neutrality laws is that they stop internet providers from blocking websites they disagree with. Removing these laws would open up the internet to all kinds of censorship.

    That might mean stifling innovation, like when AT&T tried to block access to Skype, making it impossible for new companies to compete in the future. It could also mean internet providers censoring articles and websites that are critical of them, or that simply compete with their own media properties.

    We've dropped the net neutrality term around here a few times, but you may not entirely…

    4. “Investments in internet infrastructure have actually gone up since 2015"

    The FCC’s new order is a direct response to laws passed by the same government agency in 2015 under the Obama administration. The argument made by current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is that these laws stifle innovation and keep big companies from investing in new internet infrastructure.

    However, a report from Free Press found that investments in the internet are actually up since 2015. Internet providers have spent more to expand their networks in the past two years than before. Revenue for these companies also continue to grow, outpacing the U.S. economy.

    The argument that net neutrality hurts these companies just doesn’t hold up. If anything, it helps by giving internet providers clear laws to follow.

    5. “Net Neutrality isn’t even an Obama-era regulation”

    This last argument should help if you’re arguing with someone who opposes net neutrality simply because of its connection to Barack Obama. It’s true that the current rules were passed in 2015 under Obama’s guidance, but net neutrality actually dates all the way back to 2005 under Republican President George W. Bush.

    The roots of net neutrality can be traced back to North Carolina, where a rural phone company tried to block its customers from an internet calling app called Vonage. The carrier was fined by the FCC for anticompetitive behavior, paving the way for today’s net neutrality laws.

    "Ajit Pai and Donald Trump aren’t just trying to destroy Obama’s work. Their plan could undo everything good about the free and open internet we’ve all come to depend on."

    https://lifehacker.com/how-to-explain-why-net-neutrality-matters-to-your-frien-1...

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:00 PM
  • *

    “Net Neutrality isn’t even an Obama-era regulation”

    I beg your pardon. Wasn't Obama President in 2015 when the FCC instituted the rule? And it is a rule not a law. Therefore if it is now abandoned as proposed, should there be any blatant violations to customer rights, it can be just as quickly re-instituted as it was last time when there really was no problem.

    The BS right now, coming from we all know where is strictly that and the freaking world is NOT coming to an end if they disband the current Net Neutrality "RULE".

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:42 PM
  • I beg your pardon. Wasn't Obama President in 2015 when the FCC instituted the rule? -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:42 PM

    Did you keep reading? The author addressed that concern.

    should there be any blatant violations to customer rights, it can be just as quickly re-instituted as it was last time when there really was no problem.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:42 PM

    Can it? If you've had an FCC decision that Net Neutrality isn't necessary, how will it be easy to reinstate the rule and force providers to do stop doing something previously legal? If I'm traveling down the highway at 70 mph, is putting up a speed limit: 65 mph sign after I pass going to do much?

    Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to say, "Things are great right now, so we're going to make a rule you can't change what you're doing"?

    freaking world is NOT coming to an end if they disband the current Net Neutrality "RULE".

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:42 PM

    No one's saying that the world is coming to an end. However, many people are raising legitimate concerns regarding letting ISPs determine what content is important.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:55 PM
  • *

    "If I'm traveling down the highway at 70 mph, is putting up a speed limit: 65 mph sign after I pass going to do much?

    Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to say, "Things are great right now, so we're going to make a rule you can't change what you're doing"?

    freaking world is NOT coming to an end if they disband the current Net Neutrality "RULE".

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:42 PM

    No one's saying that the world is coming to an end. However, many people are raising legitimate concerns regarding letting ISPs determine what content is important.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:55 PM"

    Wpuldn't people be safer if we set the speed limit at 35 mph then we would save more lives. Makes as much sense as your comparisons usually do. Setting a speed limit has to do with safety because of known conditions. Yours are all assumptions about something that might happen. There were no problems before the "RULE" was put in place. There are only imagine what if's at this point. I am glad you agree the world is not ending.... even though your babbling on all afternoon seems to indicate it could be.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 5:23 PM
  • Makes as much sense as your comparisons usually do. -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 5:23 PM

    Please feel free to explain why you don't think my analogy is apt.

    Setting a speed limit has to do with safety because of known conditions. Yours are all assumptions about something that might happen.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 5:23 PM

    ISPs putting profit above all else is a known condition.

    There were no problems before the "RULE" was put in place.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 5:23 PM

    You've seen evidence to the contrary.

    There are only imagine what if's at this point.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 5:23 PM

    Exactly. That's called planning for the future.

    I am glad you agree the world is not ending.... even though your babbling on all afternoon seems to indicate it could be.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 5:23 PM

    Not at all. I've presented rational arguments supporting Net Neutrality.

    The fact that you say someone is "babbling" because they happen to disagree with you is evidence that you think you know everything.

    Funny how you demonstrate all of the negative qualities you accuse me of having, isn't it?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 5:28 PM
  • *

    It’s true that the current rules were passed in 2015 under Obama’s guidance -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 3:00 PM

    Which completely contradicts all the rest of that posting. So Trump would only be rolling back what Obama did. And not the rest as the FTC and FCC have been doing since Bush.

    So, what is your problem? I know, it's Trump. Too bad. When you support 100's of executive actions and dictates when your guy is in office then you have to suck it up when your guy is out of office.

    Karma is a witch isn't it? Especially for those who can't think much farther out than next week.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 5:56 PM
  • *

    FCC chairman: Stop harassing my family over net neutrality

    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman chairman Ajit Pai asked people to stop harassing his family over his attempts to roll back net neutrality provisions.

    “I understand that people are passionate about policy, but the one thing in America that should remain sacred is that families, wives and kids, should remain out of it," he continued.

    "And stop harassing us at our homes.” 

    In a statement, Pai said "internet regulation activists have crossed the line by threatening and harassing my family," according to The Washington Post.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/news/361998-fcc-chairman-stop-harassing-my-family-ov...

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:36 PM
  • *

    If ISPs are allowed to determine what data receives priority, nothing you just said will matter.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 1:03 PM

    ...ummm , People can create their own ISPs and hosts..

    YOUTUBE has all the directions how

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:39 PM
  • *

    NETFLEX , HBO , HULU , SHOWTIME , and other Movie sources already need a paid account with password to watch on the Net .

    I'm not seeing the big deal here...

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:51 PM
  • ...ummm , People can create their own ISPs and hosts..

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:39 PM

    If people can create their own ISPs, why is anyone paying Charter, AT&T, Comcast, etc.?

    I'm thinking you probably mean something other than ISP, but I'm not sure what.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:54 PM
  • NETFLEX , HBO , HULU , SHOWTIME , and other Movie sources already need a paid account with password to watch on the Net .

    I'm not seeing the big deal here...

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:51 PM

    Because you're looking the wrong way.

    Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the consumer end of the process, which is where the paid account comes in.

    Net neutrality is concerned with the ISP part of the process, where Charter provides its own on demand service at a much faster speed than Direct TV now to stifle competition or demands Fox News or the SE Missourian to pay to be in the same internet package as the New York Times or the Washington Post.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:57 PM
  • *

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:57 PM

    You're looking the wrong way.

    How has HULU, Netflix, Amazon, etc. etc. etc. (TONS of options) made it using Charter ISP now? Or AT&T ISP now?

    The thing you keep ignoring is the REAL reason Soros and Obama supported this so much. Net neutrality also means deciding what message / content can be shown as in political ads, etc. Just like the IRS scandal this is where it would lead. And just like the IRS scandal no one will do anything about a politicians illegal use of federal law to win an election.

    You were fine with Obama's crimes with the IRS but would scream like a stuck pig if Trump did the same thing.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 7:09 PM
  • How has HULU, Netflix, Amazon, etc. etc. etc. (TONS of options) made it using Charter ISP now? Or AT&T ISP now?-- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 7:09 PM

    Because of net neutrality. Thank you for supporting my point perfectly: TONS of options is what net neutrality leads to!

    Net neutrality also means deciding what message / content can be shown as in political ads, etc -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 7:09 PM

    Where did you get that idea? How would requiring all internet traffic to be treated equally lead to that outcome?

    You were fine with Obama's...

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 7:09 PM

    Obama's no longer president! Get over it! We are talking about the Trump administration's efforts to get rid of the rules enforcing net neutrality, which will be voted on in a few weeks. What any past president did or did not do is completely irrelevant.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 7:27 PM
  • *

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 6:57 PM

    Got'cha .

    I need to spend more time outside with my own thoughts anyway .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 7:57 PM
  • *

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 7:27 PM

    Mic2: Are ISPs, news medias, car manufacturers, oil/gas suppliers, electric companies, air lines, railroad companies, and retail stores out to make money by utilizing their products for sell to the public who will pay for them to receive the benefits or not to pay and do without. If you answer is yes then No to Net Neutrality. If your answer is no then I have a bridge in NYC that I will sell you cheap.

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 8:16 PM
  • *

    Is Net Neutrality a Legislative Law . If not , what's to stop the next FCC Director to change it however they want .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 9:57 PM
  • *

    Is Net Neutrality a Legislative Law . If not , what's to stop the next FCC Director to change it however they want .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 9:57 PM

    No Net Neutrality is not the law of the land. It was the will of the Obama Administration, and there is nothing to keep some hair brain from changing it again in the future.

    Over regulation is killing this country.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:48 PM
  • Wow, I just stopped by and see this. No need to read from the beginning since the sage of Scopus is bound to set everyone straight before it's over and since a Ms idea could take a few days before it quits.

    Y'all have at it.

    -- Posted by R. W. Bess on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:58 PM
  • *

    -- Posted by R. W. Bess on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:58 PM

    Now Richard,

    How are you to learn anything new if you don't soak up some of Smeller's wisdom?

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:27 PM
  • *

    https://lifehacker.com/how-to-explain-why-net-neutrality-matters-to-your-frien-1...

    Want to see where Sneller gets his talking points on Net Neutrality. Our Leftist Posters on Speak Out appear to have learned everything they "KNOW" from website talking points. Don't they understand they are mere tools to be used to try and indoctrinate the rest of us.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:14 AM
  • "...they are mere tools to be used to try and indoctrinate the rest of us."

    Wow!!!

    It would appear that Mr. VanGennip's manic paranoia has reached an all time crescendo of confusion. Here he's trying to protect us from an evil government and we don't even appreciate his valiant efforts. (Sarcasm, should you not have noticed.)

    Unfortunately, he has still not answered the question. "Why should all internet traffic not be treated equally?"

    And the speed limit analogy is applicable. If the legal speed limit for all is 70 mph, why should the Mercedes, Cadillac and Ferrari owners be allowed to go 120 mph?

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 7:37 AM
  • *

    Unfortunately, he has still not answered the question. "Why should all internet traffic not be treated equally?"-- Posted by Rick Lettau on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 7:37 AM

    Looks like you live in a sheltered world - unfortunately by choice. Some really big, revealing questions for you to answer:

    Why should all airline tickets not be treated equally? What's up with this "first class" stuff?

    Why should all internet traffic be treated equally when I can sign up and get different speeds for different prices by choice? Can you not make decisions for yourself in Marble Hill?

    Why would you associate a speed limit for safety reasons on highways as the same as internet speed? Are you afradi and need the government to regulate your ISP speed? That's not a straw man (Snelleresque) - it's a straw house. The right question is "Why don't all roads have the same speed"? They don't do they.

    Another one of your anything Obama = good. And then you post that the Obama decision didn't solve anything that wasn't already being done. So why are you for this? For CONTENT regulation - that's what you, Obama, Soros and your buddy Sneller want.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 7:50 AM
  • *

    Unfortunately, he has still not answered the question. "Why should all internet traffic not be treated equally?"

    And the speed limit analogy is applicable. If the legal speed limit for all is 70 mph, why should the Mercedes, Cadillac and Ferrari owners be allowed to go 120 mph?

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 7:37 AM

    Where do you begin when their is such a vast field of ignorance to work with?

    Let's start with the speed of things.

    The speed of travel on highways currently is not comparable to Internet speeds, one is government owned and controlled, the other is privately owned, but the government wants to control it. Ulrich if you get around as much as you would like us to believe, have you never been to an urban area where they have a favored lane that moves traffic more quickly, and where you better stay out of if you do not have the proper credentials. Now who would to expect to find in that lane, Mercedes and Cadillacs who can afford the fee or a rusty Ford Pinto.

    What in your pea brain says all speeds should be equal?

    Right now, all speeds are not equal. And they should not be. Only in your Socialistic, Communistic Utopia like thinking are all things equal. OR, in real life, are they really equal? NO! Nor should the be. Standing on a man's throat with a high IQ is not going to improve the lot of a moron.

    Ulrich have you ever communicated with a 300 Baud modem? Minimal government regulation in high tech has brought us to where we are today in a relatively short time, blinding speeds. We now deal in Mbps speeds. We haven't seen comparible highway advancement which is managed by government.

    How did those advances happen. Oh yeah it was that dirty word, profit, that made it happen. New companies were created, billionaires became commonplace and we all get to enjoy the fruits of their efforts, but we have to pay. Why wouldn't we?

    If all of this were left to our government, our grandchildren would not live long enough to see this happen

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:03 AM
  • *

    We haven't seen comparible highway advancement which is managed by government. -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:03 AM

    That's the best comparison I've seen yet of why this is wrong. Anything the government regulates is hindered and growth is killed. ISP's and "speed" has gone through the roof without the government.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:10 AM
  • *

    Doug,

    Way back when, I purchased a Model I Radio Shack Computer. It had 4K of memory and you used a cassette recorder to save your "programming". That quickly changed and we could add as many as 4 floppy disk drives at $450 per each and $495 for the last one because it had a terminating resistor in it that cost about $0.17.

    Now I can buy a USB Flash Drive that holds 256 GB, fits in my pocket and I pay less than $100.

    Please let those greedy bastards in high tech continue to make a profit so they give us more benefits that we can choose to pay for or leave alone.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:28 AM
  • Why should all airline tickets not be treated equally? What's up with this "first class" stuff?

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 7:50 AM

    Great argument in favor of Net Neutrality!

    Do you want the ISPs to give "first class status" to certain content, preventing you from having the choice in which information you can receive?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:47 AM
  • Now who would to expect to find in that lane, Mercedes and Cadillacs who can afford the fee or a rusty Ford Pinto.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:03 AM

    I would expect either. The left lanes on most highways are for any make and model that is passing other vehicles. Some highways have HOV lanes for cars with more than one person.

    Right now, all speeds are not equal.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:03 AM

    Really? I have never seen a highway where certain cars have different speed limits or people can pay for a higher limit.

    We haven't seen comparible highway advancement which is managed by government.-- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:03 AM

    Again, really? The interstate highway system was probably the single most important factor in the economic growth of the last half of the 20th century. Additional state and local highways after built and improved all the time. Advances in road surface materials have come a long way in the past 50 years.

    All of the advances in internet to this point have been made with a neutral internet. Some technological advances would not have been possible without a neutral internet (see the examples where telcos tried to block VOIP services like Vonage or Skype, or where cable companies tried to get Netflix to pay more money to be on the same playing field as its own content).

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:55 AM
  • Again, Mr. VanGennip's confused. The capacity of reception and data storage have as much to do with it as the color of his Mercedes.

    What Mr. VanGennip seems to prefer is that on a six lane (three each way) interstate, he and fellow Mercedes owners, travel at high speed on two lanes restricted for their personal use, and everyone else be forced to slog along, bumper-to-bumper in a single slow lane.

    It's also comparable to our power grid, where everyone receives electricity at the same speed. Just because one person buys more power, it does not slow the speed at which others receive power, as long as he doesn't cause a blackout. (Don't worry, I do not expect you to understand.)

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:09 AM
  • *

    The HOV lanes were/are/were available in various states to those with electric vehicles who acquired an exemption sticker, even with only one occupant. No higher speed limit but you do travel faster in them because of less traffic congestion.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:35 AM
  • *

    Great argument in favor of Net Neutrality! -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:47 AM

    Great argument for socialist control of content on the net! That is what this is all about. As you libs have pointed out, this "issue" you are all twisted about is not a problem in the past, now or in the future. The FTC has been doing some of what you desire already.

    But you want more control of content. So did Hitler, Stalin and Mao. 3 other leftists / progressives.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM
  • The HOV lanes were/are/were available in various states to those with electric vehicles who acquired an exemption sticker, even with only one occupant.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:35 AM

    Fair point. That is one rare exception that doesn't fit my analogy.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:48 AM
  • As you libs have pointed out, this "issue" you are all twisted about is not a problem in the past, now or in the future. -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM

    If has been an issue in the past and will be a problem in the future.

    But you want more control of content. So did Hitler, Stalin and Mao. 3 other leftists / progressives.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:36 AM

    Without Net Neutrality, someone else can determine what content you receive.

    Only with Net Neutrality are you guaranteed to have the choice now and in the future.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:50 AM
  • *

    "Again, Mr. VanGennip's confused. The capacity of reception and data storage have as much to do with it as the color of his Mercedes."

    Ulrich the color of my or anyone else's automobile has nothing to do with this conversation

    "What Mr. VanGennip seems to prefer is that on a six lane (three each way) interstate, he and fellow Mercedes owners, travel at high speed on two lanes restricted for their personal use, and everyone else be forced to slog along, bumper-to-bumper in a single slow lane."

    Ulrich, once again you have let your imagination run way ahead of your common sense.

    It's also comparable to our power grid, where everyone receives electricity at the same speed. Just because one person buys more power, it does not slow the speed at which others receive power, as long as he doesn't cause a blackout. (Don't worry, I do not expect you to understand.)

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:09 AM

    ! Report comment to editor

    And this last one has everything in the world to do with how little you know.

    The internet in one stage or another is using more and more wireless these days. And varying speeds of data uploads and downloads are available

    Electricity has zip zero nada to do with speed of delivery. It travels through the wire from the Utility to the appliance you are operating at whatever it takes to keep the voltage reasonably stable. Pretty slow when you are operating one of the new LED light bulbs and rather rapidly when the Air Conditioner is operating. Although there has been talk of wireless delivery at some future date, nothing that I am aware of is in common use.

    Common Household current is 120/240 volts and 200 amp single phase service today. Build a bigger home and that could go to 400 Amp single phase service but still same voltage.

    Small business could require same services as home, but their rates per kwh are higher.

    Larger businesses could require 120/208 3 phase in maybe 600 amp service or larger. And then there are the 440 volt services and on and on.

    Electricity is not measured in speed. Three factors apply, Resistance to flow of current, Watts or power used and Voltage, the pressure required to push it through the wire.

    Utilities do not all have the same rates or the same charges for different types of use.

    Take a house in town or on a farm, install a meter base on your home and run a conduit to UE's pole and they do the rest.

    Want a service on a farm building alone Put the meter base on your pole or building, run the conduit and UE charges you for the wire and a transformer.

    That only touches the surface on how electric and the charges you incur apply.

    Why does a commercial customer pay more per KWH than a residential customer does. Both cost the same to produce. Got an answer Ulrich?

    Now tell me once again how the internet compares to electricity in speed.

    And then there is this.......

    "(Don't worry, I do not expect you to understand.)"

    You should expect it. I carried an electrical license in the years I operated my business. Still keep it active just in case the Democrats take over and I have to go back to work. (Just kidding)

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 11:25 AM
  • *

    Great argument in favor of Net Neutrality!

    Do you want the ISPs to give "first class status" to certain content, preventing you from having the choice in which information you can receive?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:47 AM

    Mic2: No thanks I'll use any means to get a air fare ticket at a price other than the listed price. No Net Neutrality!

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:06 PM
  • *

    Thanks Wheels for help keeping our electric bills lower.

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:08 PM
  • Mic2: No thanks I'll use any means to get a air fare ticket at a price other than the listed price. No Net Neutrality!

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:06 PM

    Huh?

    What does that have to do with my question? In the analogy, you aren't on the plane, you're waiting for it's arrival.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:09 PM
  • *

    What does that have to do with my question? In the analogy, you aren't on the plane, you're waiting for it's arrival.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:09 PM

    Mic2: I'm waiting on the plane with a cheaper ticket purchased than the standard price charged by the airline (an example of another ISP business) or I'm already on that plane in route to my destination - your choice.

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:15 PM
  • *

    So you're for regulations that you agree aren't necessary.-- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM

    Aren't necessary *today*. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure all content on the internet remains equal for the future. -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 11:28 AM

    If has been an issue in the past and will be a problem in the future. -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 10:50 AM

    ===

    Make up your mind. You post earlier that the net neutrality regs aren't necessary today. Then you post this is an issue in the past.

    Which is it? You've twisted yourself up again.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:16 PM
  • *

    Some on here twist and turn so much that they have screwed themselves into the ground.

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:19 PM
  • *

    Girlfriend and I are going to leave shortly and drive on the slow lane till I have to pass someone then it's on the show off lane while on the way up to Cape....it's that Highway Net Neutrality thing.

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:24 PM
  • Mic2: I'm waiting on the plane with a cheaper ticket purchased than the standard price charged by the airline (an example of another ISP business) or I'm already on that plane in route to my destination - your choice.

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:15 PM

    You don't understand the analogy. The "passengers" purchasing first class access are content providers and ISPs are the airlines.

    You are waiting on the plane arrive so you can obtain the content of your choosing.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:35 PM
  • Which is it? You've twisted yourself up again.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:16 PM

    Yep, I contradicted myself.

    You know what? That doesn't matter! What I say doesn't change the facts.

    But to clarify so we can move on: No ISP has been successful in blocking content or charging premium pricing for content to this point despite attempts that have occurred previously .

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:38 PM
  • "...twist and turn so much..."

    Clearly you're referring to our SO conservative friends.

    Mr. VanGennip is still confused in believing that resistance, watts and voltage have anything to do with delivery speed.

    The issue is simply that providers want to be able to deliver selected (by them) content at a greater speed, thereby slowing other (competition.)

    Per the link below...

    "The problem today isn’t the fast lanes. The problem is whether the ISPs will grow so large that they have undue control over the market for fast speeds—whether they can independently decide who gets access to what connection at what price. “The question is which kinds of fast lanes are problematic and which kinds are not,” says Marvin Ammori, a lawyer and net neutrality advocate."

    "Ammori is worried that, recently, internet service providers—Comcast, in particular—have been started to flex their muscle. Transit provider Level 3 says that, as it sends traffic into their networks, the big U.S. ISPs are letting some of its routers overload with data. And amidst these bottlenecks, Comcast is exploring ways of selling its own CDN services that can help companies increase delivery speeds."

    "For Ammori and others, this seems like a shake-down that lets the service providers get paid at at both ends—by their home subscribers and by the web companies that deliver stuff to these subscribers. Ammori worries that the ISPs will start throwing their weight around unfairly. “We don’t want AT&T and others to impose a tax and to treat those who pay a tax better than others,” he says. The strange thing is that even some of the biggest “net neutrality” advocates downplay the importance of these peering deals, saying they have nothing to do with net neutrality. But this is largely an argument of semantics. The point is that, whatever terms you use to describe it, the situation could lead to an unfair playing field."

    https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:51 PM
  • *

    "Again, really? The interstate highway system was probably the single most important factor in the economic growth of the last half of the 20th century. Additional state and local highways after built and improved all the time. Advances in road surface materials have come a long way in the past 50 years."

    60 Years! The Interstate HY system was begun in 1956 right her in St. Charles, MO. Thank you President Eisenhower.

    I was here and watched them building it. Certainly it has grown and certainly we have more traffic. But it's growth and improvements in no way matches those of the internet in products or lessor amount of development time.

    Private enterprise "Trumps" government by far Sneller.

    Just yesterday you were railing on how dependent we were on internet and could not get along without it.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:55 PM
  • Simpler yet, so even SO conservatives can get it...

    "Net neutrality hinges on a simple principle that internet service providers should provide access to content regardless of its source and should treat all data equally and without discrimination. In action, it’s a tool for protecting internet users from practices that may interrupt their internet experience.

    "Net neutrality prevents ISPs from slowing or throttling a user’s connection, guaranteeing they get the connection speeds they pay for regardless of how they are using the service. It also ensures carriers can’t treat services differently, providing a favorable experience for one product while slowing access to another. Service providers also cannot block specific content."

    http://www.ibtimes.com/what-net-neutrality-how-fccs-title-ii-open-internet-rules...

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 12:56 PM
  • *

    "Mr. VanGennip is still confused in believing that resistance, watts and voltage have anything to do with delivery speed."

    Please Ulrich, explain to us just what is the speed of electricity in a wire and what dictates that speed. You seem to think you know something nobody else does. Please again, tell us what that speed is.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:01 PM
  • *

    "Ammori worries that the ISPs will start throwing their weight around unfairly. “We don’t want AT&T and others to impose a tax and to treat those who pay a tax better than others,” he says."

    Ulrich,

    You have quite a lawyer you are hanging your hat on there.

    Tell me Ulrich, when did Congress legislate and what President signed the legislation that gives AT&T and other ISPs the power to levy taxes on customers.

    You're right I am terribly confused here, I totally missed that piece of legislation.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:09 PM
  • *

    Ulrich,

    I have to step out for a hair cut, perhaps you will have an answer for me by then. I really would love to hear it.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:17 PM
  • *

    Advancing technology will make all of this a moot point .

    Right now , it's nothing but partisan word salad -- Democrat good , Republican bad...Republican good , Democrat bad ..

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:20 PM
  • Advancing technology will make all of this a moot point .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:20 PM

    Perhaps. On the other hand, advancing technology might make this more of an issue in the future. There's not way to know.

    Whatever the future holds, I want to retain my choice to obtain the information I want from the source I want.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:26 PM
  • 1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes

    b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses

    2 : a heavy demand

    Try 1.b.

    -- Posted by Rick Lettau on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:30 PM
  • *

    tax

    taks/Submit

    noun

    plural noun: taxes

    1.

    a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

    synonyms: duty, tariff, excise, customs, dues; More

    2.

    a strain or heavy demand.

    "a heavy tax on the reader's attention"

    synonyms: burden, load, weight, demand, strain, pressure, stress, drain, imposition

    "a heavy tax on one's attention"

    verb

    3rd person present: taxes

    1.

    impose a tax on (someone or something).

    "hardware and software is taxed at 7.5 percent"

    synonyms: charge (duty on), tithe; formalmulct

    "they tax foreign companies more harshly"

    2.

    make heavy demands on (someone's powers or resources).

    "she knew that the ordeal to come would tax all her strength"

    synonyms: strain, stretch, overburden, overload, encumber, push too far; More

    Ulrich,

    Is this what you were trying to say?

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 2:24 PM
  • *

    "Mr. VanGennip is still confused in believing that resistance, watts and voltage have anything to do with delivery speed."

    Please Ulrich, explain to us just what is the speed of electricity in a wire and what dictates that speed. You seem to think you know something nobody else does. Please again, tell us what that speed is.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:01 PM

    Ulrich,

    You made a statement, are you incapable of explaining it.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 2:27 PM
  • Oh, good! The dictionaries have come out! That always leads to meaningful and thoughtful conversation!

    Sheesh.

    I think it was quite clear what the author of that piece meant when he said "impose a tax."

    Why not focus on that instead of trying to prove each other right/wrong based upon excerpts from dictionaries?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:01 PM
  • *

    Someone who has been reading your posts for over 4 years, including many where you have been openly and unapologetically racist. Again, you don't want to be called racist, don't make racist comments.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 1:29 PM

    Sneller,

    I am bringing your criticism over here because I feel it is disrespectful to MS Ross, who I have the utmost respect for and the quibbling over there is becoming totally stupid.

    Knowing you have to have the last word on everything I will say what I have to say and let you have the floor.

    I have the greatest respect for some people and less than none for others and the color of their skin does not dictate my feelings. You may make a judgement call as to what you think my true feelings are, but only I know them for certain.

    I certainly do not need a nobody like yourself to tell me who I am and what is racist and what is not. Who in hell died and put you in charge of determining what is racist and what is not. Is there some kind of published political correctness manual written by another nobody that you Leftists all refer to?

    Now as the man in his song said.... "Go Love Yourself" !

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:05 PM
  • *

    "I think it was quite clear what the author of that piece meant when he said "impose a tax.""

    Ok know it all, what did he mean if you have the authority to speak for him?

    And I did not bring out the dictionary first, the other Leftist on here did.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:09 PM
  • *

    I have not yet read and digested all of this, but it appears to be backing up what I and others have said on here.

    MISES WIRE

    Net Neutrality: Government Can't Know the "Correct" Price for Internet Service

    dollars.PNG

    61 COMMENTS

    TAGS Free MarketsProtectionism and Free Trade

    8 HOURS AGONicholas Freiling

    The motives of net neutrality advocates differ. But the common thread among them is a general belief that internet service providers (ISPs) face no serious competition, and therefore overcharge both their supply-side (i.e., Netflix) and demand-side (internet users) customers and generally treat customers poorly.

    In other words, ISPs have “natural monopolies” that allow them to rake in profits without improving service to customers or dealing with different customer-types in an equitable manner.

    This perspective gave rise to “net neutrality,” which the Trump administration soundly condemned last week. This measure would have essentially transformed the internet into a public utility by regulating ISPs like other utilities (electricity, water, etc.). For convoluted reasons, regulators believe this will ensure internet service is distributed equitably among all who are willing to pay the going rate — no more up-charging big bandwidth-eaters (like Netflix), even at mutually-agreeable prices.

    Underlying this perspective is the belief that we can decipher, in some way, the level of service that ought to be offered on the ISP market. To implement net neutrality, regulators would allegedly examine the ISP market and decide, on some grounds, that what exists ought to be different, and that such a change can only come about through government regulation.

    But by what standard are regulators judging ISPs to be acting unfairly? Who can say they are making too much or offering too little? Sure, internet service, as the technology has evolved, bears some similarity to public utilities like water and electricity. But it is not the same service.

    More specifically, how can we know what ISPs ought to charge?

    Some argue that ISPs have obtained special regulatory favors in the past that positioned them to build unfair monopolies in the present. That’s another argument entirely that, frankly, isn’t often made by regulators. But even if that were true, is the solution to end the market for internet service altogether, and opt instead for a pseudo-market whose bounds and limits are controlled, ultimately, by government regulators?

    This brings to mind an aspect of the socialist calculation debate, whereby Austrian economists (among others) revealed the self-destructive nature of socialism. One pillar of their argument — Mises’s specifically — is that without a market to study and observe, central planners will not know what prices to mandate for what quantities of goods. The result will be over- or under-production of regulated goods — distortive resource misallocations that ripple throughout the economy and cause excess supply and/or demand. Further, such regulations stifle investment and innovation in targeted industries, most often by indirectly capping profits.

    It is not hard to see how this applies to net neutrality and regulating ISPs. By arbitrarily changing existing markets for internet service, regulators risk corrupting the fragile preconditions necessary for firms and consumers to calculate rationally, and the incentives necessary to lure investment and risk-laden innovative enterprises. The result could be excess demand in the market for internet service if regulations force prices too low, excess supply if regulations force prices too high, or stilted innovation in ISP technology altogether. Tech icon Marc Andreesen explains:

    A pure net neutrality view is difficult to sustain if you also want to have continued investment in broadband networks. … If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company like Netflix anything, you’re not ever going to get a return on continued network investment — which means you’ll stop investing in the network. And I would not want to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same broadband speeds we’re getting today.

    This is not a complex point, but it’s important in this particular context, given the importance of internet service in modern economies. A subtler but equally applicable point regards the nature of change in a dynamic world. In a sense, this is a more formal restatement of the problem with comparing market conditions to some model rooted in a concept of the economy as rotating in some static equilibrium. Economist Peter Boettke explains:

    Mises [explained] how the static conditions of equilibrium only solved the problem of economic calculation by hypothesis, and that the real problem was one of calculation within the dynamic world of change, in which the lure of pure profit and the penalty of loss would serve a vital error detection and correction role in the economic process.

    In the context of the issue at hand, this is particularly consequential. The market for internet service is brand new and growing and evolving quickly. To decide, in a market as young and dynamic as this, that current market prices are not fair reveals a great degree of confidence in mere “hypotheses,” as Boettke puts it, about what the ideal market for internet service should look like.

    Nick Freiling is Founder/Director at Haven Insights, a DC-based market research firm. He studied Austrian economics at Grove City College and George Mason University.

    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR MAILING LISTS

    https://mises.org/wire/net-neutrality-government-cant-know-correct-price-interne...

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:19 PM
  • I have the greatest respect for some people and less than none for others and the color of their skin does not dictate my feelings.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:05 PM

    Yes, it does, and you've made that quite clear over and over.

    1. You, like the president, put anti Nazi protesters on the same level as Nazis. Racist

    2. You determined that black people are more likely to violate a parking law, despite having not nearly enough information (by your own admission) to make that decision. Racist.

    Those are just two of the examples that jump to mind right away.

    If you aren't posting what your true feelings are, then you're right, I can't know what you're thinking.

    But assuming your words here convey your true thoughts, you are racist.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:33 PM
  • *

    Incidently Sneller, did you read what Mises has say about your Net Neutrality.

    And you lied when you brought Net Neutrality aboard saying it was not Left or Right. Not political at all.

    It is just as I suspected all along right out of the Leftist Socialists playbook.

    Control is what it is all about. It was your job to convince us Sneller and you failed in convincing even one poster on here.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:47 PM
  • -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:19 PM

    You should have read and digested fully before posting; the author doesn't make much sense.

    "For convoluted reasons, regulators believe this will ensure internet service is distributed equitably among all who are willing to pay the going rate — no more up-charging big bandwidth-eaters (like Netflix), even at mutually-agreeable prices."

    I'm not sure what he find "convoluted" about that, but that's correct. All content must be treated equally.

    "Underlying this perspective is the belief that we can decipher, in some way, the level of service that ought to be offered on the ISP market."

    What? That does not follow from the premise at all.

    "To implement net neutrality, regulators would allegedly examine the ISP market and decide, on some grounds, that what exists ought to be different, and that such a change can only come about through government regulation."

    No, regulators would examine complaints that ISPs are not treating all web traffic equally.

    "It is not hard to see how this applies to net neutrality and regulating ISPs. By arbitrarily changing existing markets for internet service, regulators risk corrupting the fragile preconditions necessary for firms and consumers to calculate rationally, and the incentives necessary to lure investment and risk-laden innovative enterprises."

    Regulation of markets is 100% necessary for them to be "free." Patent and copyright regulation is necessary for the market to be free to innovate, for example. Regulations setting up limited liability forms of business (corporations, for example) are necessary for people to be free to innovate without risking their personal wealth.

    Appropriate regulation can take some of this risk out of innovation and make the market "freer" and more competitive.

    "If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company like Netflix anything, you’re not ever going to get a return on continued network investment — which means you’ll stop investing in the network."

    I can't fathom how he would think net neutrality would lead to a scenario where an ISP cannot charge Netflix anything. They just couldn't charge Netflix more or less than my upstart streaming service...making the market for video streaming "freer."

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:48 PM
  • *

    Sneller,

    I have now read every word of it and I will say this much. From where I stand, I think Mises has all of the credibility in the world and you as a Leftist have none with me.

    I believe Mises has more credibility than you do seven days a week. I believe them and what they are saying and I do not believe you. And Mises bears out what I said yesterday about creeping regulation.

    Leave the internet alone. It has performed well and given us much in the past, what 20 years give or take.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:57 PM
  • *

    They just couldn't charge Netflix more or less than my upstart streaming service...making the market for video streaming "freer."

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:48 PM

    They should be charging by the bandwith used, not some phoney price that all pay equally. Who uses the most pays the most. And who is going to know that better than the ISP. Certainly not the government.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 4:00 PM
  • I believe them and what they are saying and I do not believe you.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:57 PM

    Then feel free to rebut my critique of the article.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 4:22 PM
  • *

    Then feel free to rebut my critique of the article.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 4:22 PM

    I thought you understood.... I already did that as I did not find your critique valid.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 4:51 PM
  • I thought you understood.... I already did that as I did not find your critique valid.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 4:51 PM

    That's not a rebuttal. If you think I'm so unreliable and off base, it should be easy to give reasons my points are off base.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:14 PM
  • *

    That's not a rebuttal. If you think I'm so unreliable and off base, it should be easy to give reasons my points are off base.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:14 PM

    Ok, so by your criteria it is not a rebuttal. I disagree with you and gave you all of the reasons already yesterday. If that is not a rebuttal either then look upon it as you are not going to get me to do a homework assignment and you will have to live with what you got.

    How about a total rejection of your critique of Mises, does that work for you?

    Still stands.... you have convinced no one on here as of now

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:26 PM
  • Ok, so by your criteria it is not a rebuttal.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:26 PM

    Not by "my criteria." I don't know why you have to make everything about me.

    You didn't respond to a single point I made, so how can you say you gave a rebuttal?

    How about a total rejection of your critique of Mises, does that work for you?

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:26 PM

    Again, it's not about me!

    But at least you're not trying to claim you gave a rebuttal to any of the point I made, so that's progress.

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:29 PM
  • *

    That's not a rebuttal. If you think I'm so unreliable and off base, it should be easy to give reasons my points are off base. -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:14 PM

    Like Lettau - it wouldn't matter. It's spin, spin, spin.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 6:21 PM
  • *

    So...porn is gonna cost more now ?

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 6:26 PM
  • *

    Again , where there's a will , there's a way ....

    ....................

    Anyone Can Hack MacOS High Sierra Just by Typing "Root"

    There are hackable security flaws in software. And then there are those that don't even require hacking at all—just a knock on the door, and asking to be let in. Apple's macOS High Sierra has the second kind.

    https://www.wired.com/story/macos-high-sierra-hack-root/

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 7:19 PM
  • *

    They just couldn't charge Netflix more or less than my upstart streaming service...making the market for video streaming "freer."

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 3:48 PM

    They should be charging by the bandwith used, not some phoney price that all pay equally. Who uses the most pays the most. And who is going to know that better than the ISP. Certainly not the government.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 4:00 PM

    I believe that at least that one point was rebutted. but if Mickey thinks I am going through that list and rebutt everything he has a screw loose. All that would do is unleash another round of BS from that corner.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 7:27 PM
  • Been busy today, a quick scan of this thread tells me I didn't miss anything other than what I predicted. Nothing will shut up the Ms except the last word and the Scopus sage has all the wisdom and everyone one else is conservative flawed logic.

    -- Posted by R. W. Bess on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:13 PM
  • *

    Still stands.... you have convinced no one on here as of now

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 5:26 PM

    Wheels: After 108 postings, I for one still believes No to Net Neutrality. The Federal government has no business in the matter - let private enterprise be free to meet competition head on which will benefit the public like it has since Al Gore invented the Internet.

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:14 PM
  • *

    Richard,

    What you are hearing is an Amen from this side.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:18 PM
  • *

    Semo471,

    By being relatively free of burdensome regulations, look what the internet has become in just a few years.

    The left wants government involved so they can screw it up like they do most everything else they touch.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:20 PM
  • *

    PS:

    Semo471,

    Overlooked the Algore part. Sorry. Lurch dun guud didn't he?

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:22 PM
  • *

    Wheels: You going to see President Trump tomorrow in St. Charles? Where at?

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 9:50 PM
  • *

    Semo471

    Trump will be at the Convention Center about 4 or 5 blocks from where I live, but I would rather go to the farm and blow some leaves.

    Oh and did I forget to mention, it's by invitation only and Trump must have forgot to call me.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 8:05 AM
  • *

    Wheels: Only BLM and Antifa got the invites (from the DNC).

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 8:11 AM
  • -- Posted by David Schaefer on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 8:13 AM
  • *

    A lot of hype here. Not unusual. -- Posted by Doug Williams on Mon, Nov 27, 2017, at 10:49 AM

    The first post on this thread.

    And the last post on this thread from the Boston Globe no less: "Like Y2K, the Net neutrality crisis is way overhyped"

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 8:29 AM
  • I believe that at least that one point was rebutted. but if Mickey thinks I am going through that list and rebutt everything he has a screw loose. All that would do is unleash another round of BS from that corner.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 7:27 PM

    I believe that was in a completely unrelated post to that which I mentioned wasn't rebutted.

    I don't care what you do. But if you claim to have done something you didn't, I'm going to call you on it

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 9:58 AM
  • And the last post on this thread from the Boston Globe no less: "Like Y2K, the Net neutrality crisis is way overhyped"-- Posted by Doug Williams on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 8:29 AM

    While he did say it is over hyped (and it certainly is by some people), he also gave support for Net Neutrality.

    "I’m on board with the principle that Internet carriers should not be allowed to block certain Internet services or deliberately slow them down to make them less accessible"

    That's Net Neutrality.

    "An analysis of FCC data by Economists Inc. found that some 61 million US households have access to at least two broadband providers offering entry-level download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second. That’s a little less than half the homes in the country."

    Which means a little more than half do not have at least two high-speed internet providers.

    "Imagine Comcast Internet blocking access to, say, Amazon Prime Video, so subscribers would use Comcast’s video service instead. Millions of angry customers, including many in Boston, could then switch to a rival service — and probably would, I suspect. Any additional revenue to Comcast’s video services would be offset by all those lost subscriptions."

    He has no way of knowing that. He's assuming that access to Amazon Prime video is the only criterion used to choose Comcast as their internet provider. That's a HUGE assumptions.

    "it would simply ban networks from blocking or throttling data or from charging extra for “fast lane” Internet services"

    That's Net Neutrality

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 10:05 AM
  • *

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 10:05 AM

    Wow. A mixfused hodgepodge of "I support him on this... but he's wrong on that." over and over.

    Jeff Bezos is the richest in the world - personally. His company is worth more. Over $575 BILLION. If Amazon doesn't like ComCast he can spend is own d*** money building another ISP. The market is better to decide than Barack Obama or Donald Trump. And Trump agrees with that.

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 10:11 AM
  • Wow. A mixfused hodgepodge of "I support him on this... but he's wrong on that." over and over.-- Posted by Doug Williams on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 10:11 AM

    Oh my goodness! You mean like someone thinking for himself and not just parroting what someone else has written? The horror!

    If Amazon doesn't like ComCast he can spend is own d*** money building another ISP-- Posted by Doug Williams on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 10:11 AM

    Sure, Amazon probably could, as Google has been. We can see how quick and easy that is, though, can't we?

    Also, even if Amazon can, what about companies that aren't worth $575 billion? Can Rust Communications build its own ISP if it doesn't like the NY Times getting priority service over the SE Missourian?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 11:01 AM
  • *

    A person can have their own personal Net Server or pay somebody else to provide their Net Service , I believe Hillary Clinton's personal basement server proved this as fact .

    I'm still not seeing the big deal , I don't see the sky as falling , I see another side show to distract more important things such as North Korea just shooting another ICBM that could reach Washington , DC or the new Tax Codes or other issues .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 1:36 PM
  • *

    ...or this..it also affects Free Speech , the 1st Ammendment

    ....................

    Supreme Court may overturn decades of precedent in cellphone privacy case

    The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a closely watched case on Wednesday that will determine whether authorities can search your cellphone location data without a warrant, in a dispute that could upend decades of privacy precedent.

    The case, Carpenter v. U.S., will look at whether the Fourth Amendment — which guarantees your right against unreasonable searches and seizures — protects you against warrantless searches of cellphone records that track your movements.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-may-overturn-decades-precedent-cellphon...

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 1:41 PM
  • *

    NY Times getting priority service over the SE Missourian?

    -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 11:01 AM

    Mic2: Believe the NYT has a few more subscribers then the SE Missourian has and would get priority service just like most customers of businesses who take care of their bigger customers. That's Business 101 - you must not have taken that class.

    -- Posted by David Schaefer on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 6:34 PM
  • *

    NYT and SE Missourian both have written Newspapers that can be delivered and read at the reader's leisure .

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 6:48 PM
  • *

    Can Rust Communications build its own ISP if it doesn't like the NY Times getting service over the SE Missourian? -- Posted by Mike Sneller on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 11:01 AM

    Now you're back to content. Doing the twist again when you're wrong.

    Why would Rust build an ISP when AT&T, Charter, ComCast, cellular, etc. are all available? So many choices. But you want Barack Obama to pick one for you. Are you not capable of making your own choices?

    -- Posted by Doug Williams on Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 7:31 PM
  • *

    There's the choice of always going back to smoke signals too .

    ***********************************

    ***********************************

    Over half of public comments to FCC on net neutrality appear fake: study

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of the 21.7 million public comments submitted to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission about net neutrality this year used temporary or duplicate email addresses and appeared to include false or misleading information, the Pew Research Center said on Wednesday.

    From April 27 to Aug. 30 the public was able to submit comments to the FCC on the topic electronically. Of those, 57 percent used either duplicate email addresses or temporary email addresses, while many individual names appeared thousands of times in the submissions, Pew said.

    For example, “Pat M” was listed on 5,910 submissions, and the email address john_oliver@yahoo.com was used in 1,002 comments. TV host John Oliver supported keeping net neutrality earlier this on his HBO talk show.

    The flood of purportedly fake comments has made it difficult to interpret the public’s true thinking on net neutrality and has even spurred New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate for the last six months who posted the comments to the FCC website.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-pew/over-half-of-public-comments...

    -- Posted by Rick Scaggs on Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 6:34 AM
  • *

    Just another example of the low morals of the Leftists trying to push more regulation.

    It's why I do not bother to vote on online polls. There is no honesty in some SOB with a cause. You see it on here. The poster of this thread was caught contradicting theirself. They will tell you whatever you want to hear to promote their agenda.

    -- Posted by Ralph VanGennip on Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 7:24 AM
  • -- Posted by David Schaefer on Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 9:39 PM
  • David, I read that and agree.

    I was going to post something that had nothing to do with the subject of the thread just to fit in but reckon I'll leave the logic of electricity and my private well as related to internet speed to Lettau. So anxious to be educated on that I may turn in early tonight.

    -- Posted by R. W. Bess on Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 10:15 PM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration: