Montana stands up for Net Neutrality; prepares for FCC lawsuits

a reply to: DBCowboy

In this case, I am.

Why? Because the situation is ridiculous. I live in a state that received a ton of internet infrastructure funding that was supposed to create easy access and lots of revenue for the ISPs. Both are true, to this day, because so many wireless companies sprung up. These companies lease bandwidth from a subsidiary of a major telecom that received a tax-money based return of nearly 100% of its costs. Now the major telecom companies can dictate to smaller companies (mostly owned/operated by the middle class) what they charge for basic access to their networks and in turn push them out or force them to turn the costs onto their customers.

This isn't a whiny argument from a basement dweller. I am actually concerned with it, and until someone can further an argument against mine that results in less dog whistles and more factual content, I will wait to stand corrected.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler


It has always existed. Since the public payed for the set up and development of the Internet.

This issue is similar to utilities.

Ultimately republican business owners are going to be pissed and come down hard on their reps.

For instance getting throttled while I upload state inspections of fleet vehicles because the domain for the state is different than my provider will be a problem.

This will happen to many businesses and the cost will be passed to the consumers.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Somehow the telecoms have made this false arrguement this about a free market. It's hilarious.

It's like saying why not let companies hire 8 year orphans.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler


It has always existed. Since the public payed for the set up and development of the Internet.

Citation please.

What regulations were rolled back, and when were those regulations brought into force?

a reply to: OrdoAdChao


We're seeing open, overt corruption in the FBI and DOJ right now.

That's because one administration placed it's people in power.


Why do I bring it up?


Because you're basically asking for a Trump appointee to be in charge of the internet.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

When it became evident that there was little that the government (military) could do to prevent them from having control of the infrastructure.

It was a way to remove the corporate knife. The solution was to turn it over to the "people". That solution is now dissolved, and the States who recognize the fact that sovereignty begins with personal freedom will recognize the internet as something to be preserved for everyone, regardless of who they pay for access.

Will the telecom companies cut Montana off in protest? HA! Doubt it! Big Cellular would have a hayday considering they laid a great deal of the fiber in my state. Mysteriously Verizon is quite silent about this issue. Maybe that has something to do with it?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

It's all in the op.

The regulations that were rolled back were from the mass amount of lawsuits from telecom abuses. Net neutrality has always existed. However telecom companies pushed the limits of the law as the Internet expanded. It became known as net neutrality as telecom companies continued to abuse the power they had bush and Obama both creating laws (and congress) to try and stop this.

Prior to this the problems were far less. The Internet wasn't used as heavily for streaming and wasn't part of nearly every business in the country.

This is a direct mirror of the utilities problems that occurred where switchboard operators would not connect you to other service providers.

I would wager a large bet your "side" is going to lose.

The bottom line nobody wants to pay more for less. No business owner wants to be blocked or have unreliable service.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: OrdoAdChao


We're seeing open, overt corruption in the FBI and DOJ right now.

That's because one administration placed it's people in power.


Why do I bring it up?


Because you're basically asking for a Trump appointee to be in charge of the internet.

We actually haven't seen anything. We have heard liars call out other liars. We haven't been allowed any proof. And I seriously doubt they will give that boogeyman up.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler


The bottom line nobody wants to pay more for less. No business owner wants to be blocked or have unreliable service.

Exactly. This is an argument of wide-scale economics. The giant telecom companies will have to attempt to praise their "supply side Jesus", and will inflate costs of upkeep and improvement by micro-managing access to certain services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Google, Bing ad infinitum). They need to do this to make extreme profit because the reality is that the infrastructure available now is, by most standards, capable of unbelievable service delivery. It was expensive, and we paid for it. Now the companies that built themselves on the tax-payer funded infrastructure are demanding complete control.

Innovation? How do you innovate if a few companies dictate the rules? Are we living in a Jurassic Park fantasy of "Life (innovation) finds a way.""? Because that may sound great, but it takes a very long time for "life to find a way" and when the main source of "life" (innovation) is 35 years old, at best, I don't see how anyone could compete, let along innovate.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Why? Honestly, what a strange thing to say.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No I am not. Net Neutrality is a "hands off" policy. I'm totally for the Wild West in terms of the internet, but that's because so many "little guys" and "underdogs" had an opportunity to change the status quo.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: toysforadults
smoke and mirrors

less government regulation = better

This.
We live in America.
Free market lads.

You are delusional. There are no free-markets. The lobbyist make sure to that! Corporations ARE the government.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Free Market Subsidized By Tax Payer Money.

And I use subsidized by strict definition, in reality, it was paid for.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

It's never been enforced.

Of course unless someone can show me case precedence on a ruling against a telecom.

a reply to: toysforadults

Telecom companies realized they were under regulation and took as much advantage of it as they could. Because they held a claim to the infrastructure, they were emboldened to let the technologies utilizing the infrastructure (an infrastructure existing due to tax money) to take off. We're opening the door for internet companies to dictate our access. It's like allowing a phone provider to charge you more for this person than that person because you talk to them more. It's nonsense.

/rant on
The internet is a vital part of our future, not only as a nation, but a specie. It isn't talking on the phone, or watching television. It is nearing an ultimate expression of humanity's driving desire to communicate and learn freely. For good or ill.
/rant off

a reply to: dfnj2015

The government fostered a technology that was released to the entire world.

Now people defend American corporations' attempting to co-opt a publicly funded technology that is along the lines of the light bulb and telephone, combined.

Am I the only one that sees where this is going? Or am I just another paranoid denizen of ATS that is on the flipside of fear of the government vs. massive corporations?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

What if I told you that BK commercial wasn't about Obamacare, and neither is this thread?

Here's your answer OrdoAdChao,

My side won.

I am not sick of winning yet.

That's all he cares about. Nothing more.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Whenever telecom companies started trying to overreach and price gouge their customers.

More specifically in 2015, almost 3 years ago. Telecom companies have been lobbying ever since it was passed for it to be repealed, a.k.a. for years.

a reply to: Swills

Explaining simple facts? Are you mad?!

Acknowledgement of de-railment or troll posts only seems to dull the direct responses from SQUIRREL/troll poster. They will uphold their views with vapid responses that encourage their chosen course of argument. I do engage with these types in order to further my above example.

It seems crazy, but at least I can pigeonhole the deserving without too much effort.

One question!
That poster saying WIFI $6,33 that was part of the "joke", right?
Or maybe not?
Really not sure here...