US votes to scrap net neutrality

Arthur said:
Small aside: A public utility easily fits into a free market system, because there is no necessary requirement that it be state-owned; nor does it necessarily have to be a legislated monopoly. South Africa once had quite a number of such public utilities, but almost all have over time been nationalised and turned into state-owned corporations.
Click to expand...

that's what my last sentence alluded to. the money will come from us. the implementation of the public good can come in any number of forms that are ultimately regulated by government.
 
Supporters of scraping Obama's net neutrality don't take into account that market is not free, so it should be regulated. Scope of requlations is a matter of a balance (subject to other discussion).

Bad things is that FCC will stop monitoring ISP behaviour. I also do like a concept of treating net access as an utility - similar retrictions as to the phone networks operators. In South Africa where DSL/fibre network is very scare, Internet access also takes valuable wireless natural resources. And where natural resources come to play, more restrictions should be imposed.

We need regulations that will end a practice of selling short-term data bundles. It is actually on the way, but FCC case prompts for looking at the content specific bundles as well. It is unfair that some content-specific access is selling at lower price than a generic access. It indicate that data could be cheaper in general.

Taking as an example, Cell C Whatsapp bundle R12p/m or Black data bundles. Some Whatsapp usage can be very media intensive and Black data bundles are purely for content-owner-specific music/video streaming. These high-usage profiles take up natural resource from all of us, slowing down our Internet considerably. And why these customers who consume most of our natural resources should pay lower prices per meg than all others? Regulation preventing content providers from saturating our networks is needed urgently.
 
Last edited:
I believe this won't really affect us in terms of any increases but that you might be requested to pay more for a secure and private service, which is exactly what we are currently already having. People who can afford that type of thing will buy it but for the rest, we should still have access to the free services on the Net as we have always had, at the expense of our online privacy for a free service.
 
Randhir said:
Yeah 'imaginary problems' like not being able to move to a competitor because none exists, or those that do service the area colluding on prices.

Because that'd never happen, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ja, 10 years ago. A problem that was sorted out in South Africa by deregulation.
 
Ryansr said:
I believe this won't really affect us in terms of any increases but that you might be requested to pay more for a secure and private service, which is exactly what we are currently already having. People who can afford that type of thing will buy it but for the rest, we should still have access to the free services on the Net as we have always had, at the expense of our online privacy for a free service.
Click to expand...
You're smoking tik if you think think "this" will affect us at all. The fact that the morons here think it has anything to do with anyone outside outside the USA is testament to how strong the cool aid is.
 
sajunky said:
Supporters of scraping Obama's net neutrality don't take into account that market is not free, so it should be regulated. Scope of requlations is a matter of a balance (subject to other discussion).

Bad things is that FCC will stop monitoring ISP behaviour. I also do like a concept of treating net access as an utility - similar retrictions as to the phone networks operators. In South Africa where DSL/fibre network is very scare, Internet access also takes valuable wireless natural resources. And where natural resources come to play, more restrictions should be imposed.

We need regulations that will end a practice of selling short-term data bundles. It is actually on the way, but FCC case prompts for looking at the content specific bundles as well. It is unfair that some content-specific access is selling at lower price than a generic access. It indicate that data could be cheaper in general.

Taking as an example, Cell C Whatsapp bundle R12p/m or Black data bundles. Some Whatsapp usage can be very media intensive and Black data bundles are purely for content-owner-specific music/video streaming. These high-usage profiles take up natural resource from all of us, slowing down our Internet considerably. And why these customers who consume most of our natural resources should pay lower prices per meg than all others? Regulation preventing content providers from saturating our networks is needed urgently.
Click to expand...
Jesus! Stop taking drugs that don't even offer the benefit of making you feel good. The market is not free so it should be regulated is the exact same thing as saying the market is not free so it should be less free. The fact that you people can't speak basic ****ing English is evidence that you should shut the **** up to start with. You are all talking absolute ****ing shyt because you are mass hallucinating. You are all incapable of elementary logic. Stop embarrassing yourselves ffs.
 
Nick333 said:
Jesus! Stop taking drugs that don't even offer the benefit of making you feel good. The market is not free so it should be regulated is the exact same thing as saying the market is not free so it should be less free. The fact that you people can't speak basic ****ing English is evidence that you should shut the **** up to start with. You are all talking absolute ****ing shyt because you are mass hallucinating. You are all incapable of elementary logic. Stop embarrassing yourselves ffs.
Click to expand...
Do not call the name of Jesus you don't really believe. If you did, you would obey His teaching, your post indicate otherwise. As an 'educated' person (as you pretend to be), you should know it. This is what I have to say to you. The rest, offensive for no reason, is ignored.
 
sajunky said:
Do not call the name of Jesus you don't really believe. If you did, you would obey His teaching, your post indicate otherwise. As an 'educated' person (as you pretend to be), you should know it. This is what I have to say to you. The rest, offensive for no reason, is ignored.
Click to expand...
What?
 
sajunky said:
Do not call the name of Jesus you don't really believe. If you did, you would obey His teaching, your post indicate otherwise. As an 'educated' person (as you pretend to be), you should know it. This is what I have to say to you. The rest, offensive for no reason, is ignored.
Click to expand...
+1. Jesus saves
 
Arthur said:
One can't possibly answer that question because it's equivocal - do you mean no regulation whatsoever in any area, or do you mean no regulation in business generally, or specifically in telecommunications? So it depends what you're really asking.

What is it with you that can see only in binary terms - all-government or no-government??!! :crylaugh: The real world is analogue, not digital, for Pete's sake.

But since you ask, I'll give a quick and serious answer:

Initiating physical force or its threat to compel another person against his/her will to provide/surrender a good or service is immoral and evil. The role of government is to place the retaliatory (ie defensive) use of force under objective control. Government is a necessary and good institution, and there cannot be a society without government. The first rule of social living is that force and fraud are banned in all human relations, ie no-one may ever initiate the use of force in their dealings with others. It is the role of government to protect and vindicate the life, liberty and property of every person without exception - and that means it acts in the defence of those who are victims of force or its threat, or of fraud. Of course that means a whole body of laws that the State must enforce justly (common law, eg against murder, assault, theft, violations of personal or proprietal integrity, and so on. And it must enforce this universally and without favour. But nowhere in this conception of the State is there a requirement that the State become directly involved in economic relations. In fact it is highly undesirable that the State involves itself in the economy, because that amalgamates the power of the sword (unique to the State) with economic power, and - given human nature - that is a very dangerous concentration of power and open to massive abuse (as we know only too well). Moreover, the State plays a role in being an impartial arbiter in disputes between citizens, and it cannot do so fairly if it also has a direct economic interest in the outcome. So the State ought to remain aloof of human commerce. One of the consequences of this view is that the State should have nothing to do with regulating telecommunications, content, speech, business, spectrum, bandwidth, prices, etc, etc, etc. And neither should it be the houser, educator, medicator, nanny, nursemaid.

Your false binarism about the State tries to resolves everything into all-government or no-government. I do not see it thus. As I said, in my view government is good and necessary -- but it has a very specific function and very unique and awesome power required to exercise its function: the power of the legal use of physical force. Provided human beings abide by the first rule of social living (no force or fraud), the intercourse of humans in society, commerce, economics, arts, culture, sport, technology, science, etc, etc, etc should be left to citizens with no State interference, control regulation -- all these of these work entirely by compulsion, and compulsion is the enemy of liberty. Compulsion is the method and the mode of slavery, and I reject that utterly when it comes to the interactions of adult human beings. Liberty is a precious and fragile flower, and must be nurtured and preserved lest we lapse into tribal warfare and barbarism.
Click to expand...
+1. Well said, so I just have to quote it again
 
Last edited:
I repeat: Terrible news.
This is nothing less than racketeering where content providers are going to have to pay 'protection' money. Those who can not pay will get thwarted.
 
Watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fyiv1LvR-A

Stop being the MSNBC "reporter", and listen to the FCC guy. As usual there are a heap of "experts" on the subject that have no clue what they are talking about.

Scrapping net neutrality is a good thing. If the big corporates want it in place, that should already have set off warning bells.
 
Vio said:
I repeat: Terrible news.
This is nothing less than racketeering where content providers are going to have to pay 'protection' money. Those who can not pay will get thwarted.
Click to expand...

Wrong, that is illegal. Net neutrality does not cover that part at all. Do you even know what Title 2 is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X