an end to net neutrality

This will be most interesting only to the lawyers, who will be able to sue the cable companies and other carriers (and the FCC itself) for "restraint of trade" on behalf of a class of plaintiffs that consists of "everyone else."

The core problem, especially for cable-TV companies, is that they continue to think of themselves (and to be licensed) as "distributors of proprietary content," not as "common carriers."

A common-carrier is not permitted to play favorites. For example, the Standard Oil Trust was broken-up largely because of its practice of negotiating substantially-lower freight rates for its own product than the railroads would make available to anyone else who wanted to ship an identical product ... petroleum. If you attempt to give an unfair advantage to one party, you by definition give an unfair dis-advantage to everyone else, which very quickly is going to make every one of them a plaintiff.

The Internet is, and must be, "common carriage." The only way to carry it is "without favor."

One permanent strategy that I can forsee happening, as a direct result of this, is to force cable-TV companies (in particular) to divest themselves of their communication networks(!) and to sell their proprietary content through a separate business, which must tender that content to any carrier. And, as was done with the railroads, to mandate things equivalent to "standard gauge" and rules which now oblige railroads to carry all cars across their lines without preference as to who owns the cars, and to tender all shipments with comparable despatch without unduly favoring its own business. Legal principles like these do not uniformly exist yet, but I forsee their coming ... and this is the best (and therefore, the most short-sighted) possible way to force that issue!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs This will be most interesting only to the lawyers, who will be able to sue the cable companies and other carriers (and the FCC itself) for "restraint of trade" on behalf of a class of plaintiffs that consists of "everyone else." The core problem, especially for cable-TV companies, is that they continue to think of themselves (and to be licensed) as "distributors of proprietary content," not as "common carriers." A common-carrier is not permitted to play favorites. For example, the Standard Oil Trust was broken-up largely because of its practice of negotiating substantially-lower freight rates for its own product than the railroads would make available to anyone else who wanted to ship an identical product ... petroleum. If you attempt to give an unfair advantage to one party, you by definition give an unfair dis-advantage to everyone else, which very quickly is going to make every one of them a plaintiff. The Internet is, and must be, "common carriage." The only way to carry it is "without favor." One permanent strategy that I can forsee happening, as a direct result of this, is to force cable-TV companies (in particular) to divest themselves of their communication networks(!) and to sell their proprietary content through a separate business, which must tender that content to any carrier. And, as was done with the railroads, to mandate things equivalent to "standard gauge" and rules which now oblige railroads to carry all cars across their lines without preference as to who owns the cars, and to tender all shipments with comparable despatch without unduly favoring its own business. Legal principles like these do not uniformly exist yet, but I forsee their coming ... and this is the best (and therefore, the most short-sighted) possible way to force that issue!

this would be complex
it seems that they would prefer the role of distributors of proprietary content
over being common carriers

ether way they would stop being local monopolies and have to compete witch would be the last thing they would want
and would much prefer net neutrality over ether option

If you're assuming that they are still a "local monopoly," perhaps you should take a second-look at what's now available in your area. Here, both the phone company and the electric company offer optical-fiber based Internet infrastructure ... through which they also offer television. And, if something goes wrong with the service, you make a local call to a local group of people who "go and fix it." Wow.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs If you're assuming that they are still a "local monopoly," perhaps you should take a second-look at what's now available in your area. Here, both the phone company and the electric company offer optical-fiber based Internet infrastructure ... through which they also offer television. And, if something goes wrong with the service, you make a local call to a local group of people who "go and fix it." Wow.

for cable tv it's time warrner directly or time warrner through at&t or the satellite services
for inter net just the down town area at&t fiber the ADSL lines have been abandoned through out the city
the whole city time warrner road runner

Heh ... I think that is indeed the cable companies (in particular, ComCast) which are "taking it in the shorts" in more ways than one. They built their coaxial-cable-based infrastructure in a time when the world consisted of copper wire ... and paid no serious attention to what happened next. Well, "what happened next" was optical. Telephone companies ran fiber, and simply left their old copper to be dug-up someday as a curiosity by archaeologists of a future era. Electrical utilities(!) in many cities have done exactly the same thing. They're running high-speed Internet and television service down the same wire ... and they're giving millions of customers the long-awaited ability to stick it (back) to ComCast. Which they are wasting no time in doing.

Ironically, now it is specifically the cable-TV companies who are left with "the slower network." Although coax is certainly fast, fiber is faster. But it's really the cable companies' years of outrageously-bad customer non-service that they're now in payback-mode for. They built-up a huge debt of customer resentment.

And here, I think, is where their latest "net non-neutrality" attempts will once again backfire. "If you won't carry all traffic at equal speed, then we certainly will ... and by-the-by we can carry it faster than you can. C'mon, customers ... join the happy growing ranks of 'former cable customers' ... come over here and join us!" It will be perceived as "just another way that ComCast (in particular) devises ways to stick-it to their customers," and it will simply induce even more of their former customers to be 'former' customers. Cable companies do not exert monopoly power at this point ... but they haven't accepted that yet. Not quite yet.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-288kbps.shtml
It's more of a threat than a protest.

The only thing that annoys me is how people skim this issue and get outraged as if it was an ambush by the FCC. Net neutrality was doomed the moment Tom Wheeler, a telecom lobbyist was appointed FCC Chairman. What did everyone expect to happen? The problem isn't the FCC. The FCC is just another pathetic farce and a front for big money interests, just like the rest of the US government.

And here, I think, is where their latest "net non-neutrality" attempts will once again backfire. "If you won't carry all traffic at equal speed, then we certainly will ... and by-the-by we can carry it faster than you can. C'mon, customers ... join the happy growing ranks of 'former cable customers' ... come over here and join us!" It will be perceived as "just another way that ComCast (in particular) devises ways to stick-it to their customers," and it will simply induce even more of their former customers to be 'former' customers. Cable companies do not exert monopoly power at this point ... but they haven't accepted that yet. Not quite yet.

Are you trying to say that electric company internet is spreading in the US? That must be in some isolated areas. Comcast or Time Warner are the defacto monopolies in most of the country, soon to merge into 1.

Its hardly surprising. Considering how much the gov is becoming more and more like big brother every day.
I think we are heading for collapse ... eventually

Wish you didn't link "The Young turks" video though because now their crapola will probably be suggested on my youtube page even more.

Originally Posted by xyzone Are you trying to say that electric company internet is spreading in the US? That must be in some isolated areas. Comcast or Time Warner are the defacto monopolies in most of the country, soon to merge into 1.

Yes, the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga, Tennessee is boasting of "Gig City," because of its 1+ gigabyte-per-second optical fiber based transfer-rates throughout the city and the surrounding area.

Meanwhile, regional telephone companies throughout the area are also using fiber to provide high-speed transfers at least as far as the "last mile." (The DSL-line that serves my house is about 500 feet long. An optical substation almost at the end of my driveway carries the signal from there.)

And, quite frankly, I think that this trend will continue apace. Optical fiber is much easier to string-up than coaxial cable, can go an arbitrary distance between "substations," and has more-than-enough bandwidth to take care of anything and everything(!) that you (today ...) can think to send through it. So, the (coaxial ...) "cable companies' are, in fact, just as surely "caught with their pants down off" as "Ma Bell" was in its day.

They're "merging into one" ... not because they are "The Unstoppable Victor" that their Marketing Departments might wish for them to be ... but merely to try to survive the Sea Change that is even-now burying them.

"Ma Bell" has abandoned hundreds of tons of copper underneath the ground. In time, the "invincible" Cable Companies will abandon hundreds of thousands of miles of coax on light-poles ... i-f they survive. (Which I seriously doubt, given the dozens of years that they imperiously screwed their customers, imagining that "nothing bad could ever happen to me.")

(Famously, Wang Corporation pooh-poohed the PC, observing (correctly, but irrelevantly ...) that they "had an 80% market share" of dedicated word-processing computers. Yes, indeed, every law-office in the country had several . . .)

Originally Posted by smeezekitty Wish you didn't link "The Young turks" video though because now their crapola will probably be suggested on my youtube page even more.

Why not? Truth hurts?

---------- Post added May 13th, 2014 at 23:06 ----------

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Yes, the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga, Tennessee is boasting of "Gig City," because of its 1+ gigabyte-per-second optical fiber based transfer-rates throughout the city and the surrounding area. Meanwhile, regional telephone companies throughout the area are also using fiber to provide high-speed transfers at least as far as the "last mile." (The DSL-line that serves my house is about 500 feet long. An optical substation almost at the end of my driveway carries the signal from there.) And, quite frankly, I think that this trend will continue apace. Optical fiber is much easier to string-up than coaxial cable, can go an arbitrary distance between "substations," and has more-than-enough bandwidth to take care of anything and everything(!) that you (today ...) can think to send through it. So, the (coaxial ...) "cable companies' are, in fact, just as surely "caught with their pants down off" as "Ma Bell" was in its day. They're "merging into one" ... not because they are "The Unstoppable Victor" that their Marketing Departments might wish for them to be ... but merely to try to survive the Sea Change that is even-now burying them. "Ma Bell" has abandoned hundreds of tons of copper underneath the ground. In time, the "invincible" Cable Companies will abandon hundreds of thousands of miles of coax on light-poles ... i-f they survive. (Which I seriously doubt, given the dozens of years that they imperiously screwed their customers, imagining that "nothing bad could ever happen to me.") (Famously, Wang Corporation pooh-poohed the PC, observing (correctly, but irrelevantly ...) that they "had an 80% market share" of dedicated word-processing computers. Yes, indeed, every law-office in the country had several . . .)

That might be in the long term, but I think the immediate future of the internet is headed towards a dark age.

Originally Posted by xyzone Why not? Truth hurts? ---------- Post added May 13th, 2014 at 23:06 ---------- That might be in the long term, but I think the immediate future of the internet is headed towards a dark age.

They upset his neo-libertarian echo chamber.

More than just the internet.

Why not? Truth hurts?

Originally Posted by Germany_chris They upset his neo-libertarian echo chamber.

*sigh* way to assume something. For what it is worth I consider myself conservative. BUT I am very selective on my sources
Remember what assume really is.
They pollute their content with far too much garbage.


Thing is I really don't want to see any of this 'stuff':http://postimg.org/image/y0se4l4zb/

Don't mean to come across rude. Just please don't judge people because they don't like a particular youtube channel

Originally Posted by smeezekitty *sigh* way to assume something. For what it is worth I consider myself conservative. BUT I am very selective on my sources Remember what assume really is. They pollute their content with far too much garbage. Thing is I really don't want to see any of this 'stuff':http://postimg.org/image/y0se4l4zb/ Don't mean to come across rude. Just please don't judge people because they don't like a particular youtube channel

But I will, and it wasn't intended to be nice.

Whatever then. Just realize that you are being unreasonable