More from Tulsi: Net neutrality to be repealed

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

people are taxed to pay for schools that they "don't ever use".

My kids are long beyond their years in public schools. And yet I don't mind paying taxes for my non use of those schools:

* It keeps teenagers off the streets for a few hours a day
* Hopefully some public school students will graduate, get jobs, and pay into the social security and Medicare system so eventually I might get back some of the money I paid into it

“Facts fall from the poetic observer as ripe seeds.” -Henry Thoreau

[glinda]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geochem

why shouldn't the utility have a tiered rate structure: one rate for those who squander generation capacity and another for those of us who take an occasional sip?

---

That's an interesting view on things. So my grandchildren who spend a considerable amount of time between Facebook and Youtube are "squander[ing] generation capacity" are they? And my neighbor that watches all their household's TV type entertainment on Netflix is "squander[ing] generation capacity" are they? Is that really, the negative of "squander[ing]," is that really how you see today's internet user? when compared to your own "occasional sip?"

No I don't think there should be a blanket one size fits all. Sure, for the occasional sippers there might be, as there is with cellular devices, small kind caps, buy 5 GB of data kind of thing. And let the guy that wants a full on unlimited access pay a different fee. But that is not what is being shown as the way things will pan out if this all goes the way the current FCC wants it to be. In that scenario it's more along the lines of types of use, and as such without much fanfare starts looking like more of a fee based control of behaviors.

Imagine your ISP recognizing that you spend time on PW so they decide that it's a great opportunity to charge you $4.99 a month for access to PW. Another $4.99 for access to the news, and another to watch a video. And, god forbid, if you want to watch porn! Do you watch porn on those "occasional sips?" Do you really want ISPs to use types of usage to determine fees all based on a profit motive rather than a blanket fee schedule that leaves an individual's choice of content out of the equation?

So yeah, I'll give you the occasional sip over a full on daily it's my life on the net user, but I wouldn't speak of it in such negative terms as you went with, "squander?" But I still think it should not be an ISPs business what kind of content I choose. After all, from their profit motive to government's unhealthy control of what they perceive as the moral high ground is one slippery slope. Especially now that we see what can happen when a madman gets elected.

[Old Croc]

Here is a new article about this issue. If you are pro-net neutrality, don't be put off by the title; the article actually addresses both sides of the argument.
http://au.pcmag.com/news/50658/fcc-chair...sm-utterly

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

the article actually addresses both sides of the argument.
...
FCC Chairman: Twitter, Celeb Net Neutrality Criticism 'Utterly Absurd'
...
He continued:
"Now look: I love Twitter, and I use it all the time," he said. "But let's not kid ourselves; when it comes to an open internet, Twitter is part of the problem.

What is absurd is FCC Chairman Pai's apples and oranges comparison between Twitter and the internet. Twitter is a private company, built with private equity. They are perfectly free to make their own rules. You are free to use it or not use it. If you decide not to download a Twitter app you can still access Facebook, Google, Instagram, etc. The internet was founded, developed, and initially built with taxpayer money. Telecoms should be able to provide us access, and charge us for it, but within the framework that we users created.

Verizon's service as an internet provider is not the same thing as Twitter. And I'm sure Ajit Pai recognizes that. He just hopes you're not paying attention.

“Facts fall from the poetic observer as ripe seeds.” -Henry Thoreau

[leilanidude]

The internet was founded, developed, and initially built with taxpayer money.
------
That is true to a point. But since then, the thousands of inter-city and oceanic cable networks have been built and maintained by private companies, who get paid by the ISP's for that bandwidth and connectivity. In some cases, the ISP's themselves fund new cables to provide themselves with additional bandwidth (Hawaiian Telcom just completed a major one)

Check out some of the maps in the US of internet cables that are owned by private companies.

http://www.telecomramblings.com/network-...resources/

[kalakoa]

What is absurd is FCC Chairman Pai's apples and oranges comparison between Twitter and the internet.

The comparison may be absurd, but it serves the intended purpose: when you can't defend your position with facts, cloud the issue until people don't notice that you have no facts.

[terracore]

The internet was founded, developed, and initially built with taxpayer money."

Only until about 1994. I can expand on where the money came from after that, but this is a family-friendly forum.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Only until about 1994

That's like saying the Beatles were only together until 1970, so let Verizon, Comcast, & Spectrum control and keep all the money for Hey Jude when it's transmitted through their system. Why should Paul McCartney get any royalties for something he did 50 years ago? It's iTunes or Verizon doing the work now.

Sure, the Internet has been expanded. That's the easy part. The hard part, paid for by you and me was already there, up and running, and doing just fine without corporate carpetbaggers.

“Facts fall from the poetic observer as ripe seeds.” -Henry Thoreau

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Coropations already scrubbing their web pages of promises made before the FCC recommendation:

But thanks to a sharp find from Ars Technica, we know that Comcast was already changing its promises at that time. The telecom has had a page on its corporate website since at least August of 2014 that explained its position on net neutrality. Up until April 26th of this year, the statement said things like “Comcast won’t block access to lawful content,” and “Comcast won’t throttle back the speed at which content comes to you” (emphasis ours). Beginning on April 27th, the pledge effectively ceased being a pledge, and is more of a statement on the way things are at the moment.

The previous lines asserting that Comcast “won’t” do the bad things have now been changed to: “We do not block, slow down or discriminate against lawful content.” It’s probably just a coincidence that April 26th was the same day Pai kicked off the process of dismantling the open internet. By the way, a line from the statement that previously read “An Open Internet with access for all. That’s what we’re for,” has also been deleted.
https://gizmodo.com/comcast-changed-its-...1820852207

“Facts fall from the poetic observer as ripe seeds.” -Henry Thoreau

[kalakoa]

Why should Paul McCartney get any royalties for something he did 50 years ago?

Because that's how the copyright system works: why continue to create?