Net Neutrality is Dead.

jeffbr · March 2015

rr165892 said:

show previous quotes
jeffbr said:
I tend to agree with BS about needing to keep perspective. I am 100% in favor of net neutrality. That doesn't mean I am 100% in favor of the FCC reclassifying it, and keeping the details of their plans quiet. I'm reserving judgement about this news until I know what the FCC is actually up to. I may be called pessimistic for joining his concern, but I think it is realistic caution.

Similarly, I am pro-legalization with respect to weed. My state legalized weed through an initiative called I-502. Although I am 100% in favor of legalization I voted against I-502. I was worried that in our rush for legalization we would grant the government regulatory powers that would be detrimental to the actual objective. Sure enough, I-502 shoehorned weed into an archaic, post-prohibition alcohol control scheme that didn't work very well for alcohol, but since alcohol sales were moved out from under their control, they were just itching for something else to inefficiently regulate and got it with weed. I've never been to a legal, retail pot store here because they can't compete on price with the black market or the medical dispensaries. I can get week for $15 - $20/gram at a store. I can get 1/8th for $25 at a dispensary or through the black market. Why would I pay retail prices which have been taxed 3 different times on its way to the consumer? This has resulted in non-competitive pricing, a strange supply/demand problem, and inefficient licensing of retail stores. Some stores that received licenses haven't even opened, probably because they're waiting to see if there's an actual/viable business to be made.

It is this type of disappointment with government controlled services that informs my less-than-positive view of the FCC's actions regarding net neutrality. Again, 100% in favor of net neutrality, not so much in favor of the unknown fall-out that we'll surely be facing soon through new taxes and regulations.
Usually there is nothing the govt runs that is more efficient then private enterprise.But Lets not forget Jeff,At least you have the added availability for procurement and a progressive minded state.We are still in the dark ages here in FL,when it comes to MJ.Hopefully this year.We lost out by 2%.we needed 60% to pass and only got 58%.

Yeah, I am glad we're progressive in this area, and there have been some good things to come out of it. I just wish we'd taken our time and had a better initiative or legislation crafted to make it more efficient and perhaps more market driven. We are surely losing out on a lot of the promised tax revenue because (legal) supply was an issue for a long time after the initiative was enacted, and with prices as high as they are in the legal shops most people I know are still buying their weed from the same places they bought before legalization. The big benefit for us is that we no longer have to worry about carrying around weed or paraphernalia. And smoking weed in public in Seattle will at most get you an "open container" type of ticket and set you back about $25, but usually the cop will just tell you to knock it off. So I appreciate what we have, especially when I read horror stories still going on in this country for relatively minor weed offenses. Good luck to FL! I thought it would pass last time, but with the way states are flipping off the feds, I'm sure it will pass next time the voters get a chance.

rr165892 · March 2015

jeffbr said:

show previous quotes
rr165892 said:

jeffbr said:
I tend to agree with BS about needing to keep perspective. I am 100% in favor of net neutrality. That doesn't mean I am 100% in favor of the FCC reclassifying it, and keeping the details of their plans quiet. I'm reserving judgement about this news until I know what the FCC is actually up to. I may be called pessimistic for joining his concern, but I think it is realistic caution.

Similarly, I am pro-legalization with respect to weed. My state legalized weed through an initiative called I-502. Although I am 100% in favor of legalization I voted against I-502. I was worried that in our rush for legalization we would grant the government regulatory powers that would be detrimental to the actual objective. Sure enough, I-502 shoehorned weed into an archaic, post-prohibition alcohol control scheme that didn't work very well for alcohol, but since alcohol sales were moved out from under their control, they were just itching for something else to inefficiently regulate and got it with weed. I've never been to a legal, retail pot store here because they can't compete on price with the black market or the medical dispensaries. I can get week for $15 - $20/gram at a store. I can get 1/8th for $25 at a dispensary or through the black market. Why would I pay retail prices which have been taxed 3 different times on its way to the consumer? This has resulted in non-competitive pricing, a strange supply/demand problem, and inefficient licensing of retail stores. Some stores that received licenses haven't even opened, probably because they're waiting to see if there's an actual/viable business to be made.

It is this type of disappointment with government controlled services that informs my less-than-positive view of the FCC's actions regarding net neutrality. Again, 100% in favor of net neutrality, not so much in favor of the unknown fall-out that we'll surely be facing soon through new taxes and regulations.
Usually there is nothing the govt runs that is more efficient then private enterprise.But Lets not forget Jeff,At least you have the added availability for procurement and a progressive minded state.We are still in the dark ages here in FL,when it comes to MJ.Hopefully this year.We lost out by 2%.we needed 60% to pass and only got 58%.
Yeah, I am glad we're progressive in this area, and there have been some good things to come out of it. I just wish we'd taken our time and had a better initiative or legislation crafted to make it more efficient and perhaps more market driven. We are surely losing out on a lot of the promised tax revenue because (legal) supply was an issue for a long time after the initiative was enacted, and with prices as high as they are in the legal shops most people I know are still buying their weed from the same places they bought before legalization. The big benefit for us is that we no longer have to worry about carrying around weed or paraphernalia. And smoking weed in public in Seattle will at most get you an "open container" type of ticket and set you back about $25, but usually the cop will just tell you to knock it off. So I appreciate what we have, especially when I read horror stories still going on in this country for relatively minor weed offenses. Good luck to FL! I thought it would pass last time, but with the way states are flipping off the feds, I'm sure it will pass next time the voters get a chance.

Fingers crossed.

BS44325 · March 2015

Who needs 5G when we'll have fair G.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2893032/5g-net-neutrality-may-be-headed-for-a-showdown.html

Last-12-Exit · March 2015

Can someone put this in the simplest terms possible? I read the first few posts in the thread and still don't really understand this. I gather that the government wants to censor what is on the internet. Am I close?

PJfanwillneverleave1 · March 2015

There are really only a few people in this world who actually know how the internet came to be and how it will survive. Those same individuals are now in competition with a few equally smart cookies and they do not like it. Throttling and suppression of the net is controlled by the original makers and they will continue to do so as long as there is competition/customers.

Government has nothing to do with net neutrality. They need internet to conduct themselves internally.

dignin · March 2015

Last-12-Exit said:
Can someone put this in the simplest terms possible? I read the first few posts in the thread and still don't really understand this. I gather that the government wants to censor what is on the internet. Am I close?

http://www.businessinsider.com/simple-explanation-of-net-neutrality-2014-4

Sorry, that was old. I will try and find something newer.

dignin · March 2015

Last-12-Exit said:
Can someone put this in the simplest terms possible? I read the first few posts in the thread and still don't really understand this. I gather that the government wants to censor what is on the internet. Am I close?

Maybe this little video is better

http://www.upworthy.com/video-net-neutrality-explained-in-under-2-minutes

Last-12-Exit · March 2015

dignin said:

show previous quotes
Last-12-Exit said:
Can someone put this in the simplest terms possible? I read the first few posts in the thread and still don't really understand this. I gather that the government wants to censor what is on the internet. Am I close?
http://www.businessinsider.com/simple-explanation-of-net-neutrality-2014-4

Sorry, that was old. I will try and find something newer.

Ok, those site actually helped out a lot. And I can see where this is going to be a huge problem for our first amendment very soon. We will only be able to access what the richest companies want us to see in the internet.

BS44325 · March 2015

It appears that Netflix "flipped" a bit on this issue and nows says it never wanted government regulation

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-cfo-pleased-with-fcc-title-ii-ruling-although-its-preference-would-have-been-no-broadband-regulation-1201446282/

Last-12-Exit · March 2015

BS44325 said:
It appears that Netflix "flipped" a bit on this issue and nows says it never wanted government regulation

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-cfo-pleased-with-fcc-title-ii-ruling-although-its-preference-would-have-been-no-broadband-regulation-1201446282/

Seems that the meat and potatoes were kept hidden until after the vote.

BS44325 · March 2015

Last-12-Exit said:

show previous quotes
BS44325 said:
It appears that Netflix "flipped" a bit on this issue and nows says it never wanted government regulation

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-cfo-pleased-with-fcc-title-ii-ruling-although-its-preference-would-have-been-no-broadband-regulation-1201446282/
Seems that the meat and potatoes were kept hidden until after the vote.

Most transparent administration ever!

dignin · March 2015

BS44325 said:
It appears that Netflix "flipped" a bit on this issue and nows says it never wanted government regulation

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-cfo-pleased-with-fcc-title-ii-ruling-although-its-preference-would-have-been-no-broadband-regulation-1201446282/

Nope

http://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-says-it-still-supports-net-neutrality-despite-cfos-comments/

dignin · March 2015

New FCC rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/12/here-are-all-400-pages-of-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules/

BS44325 · April 2015

Yay! More fees!

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-broadband-fees-20150409-story.html#page=1

stuckinline · November 2017

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-plans-net-neutrality_us_5a14459ae4b0aa32975df36b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

FCC Announces Plans To Repeal Net Neutrality

Trump’s FCC Chairman thinks Comcast should have even more control over your internet than it already does.

Halifax2TheMax · November 2017

stuckinline said:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fcc-plans-net-neutrality_us_5a14459ae4b0aa32975df36b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

FCC Announces Plans To Repeal Net Neutrality
Trump’s FCC Chairman thinks Comcast should have even more control over your internet than it already does.

I'm sure the Bernie Bros and Indies who voted Trump or stayed home are rejoicing in the streets. Imagine the agendas that will be propagated now?

MayDay10 · November 2017

i am furious about this.

why isnt there more outrage?

josevolution · November 2017

MayDay10 said:

i am furious about this.

why isnt there more outrage?

There’s so much to be outraged about this administration it’s hard to choose ..

tempo_n_groove · November 2017

I hated paying extra back in the day for a faster damn speed...

They (phone companies) are losing the grip on the market so they are trying to do whatever they can to make money.

MayDay10 · November 2017

tempo_n_groove said:

I hated paying extra back in the day for a faster damn speed...

They (phone companies) are losing the grip on the market so they are trying to do whatever they can to make money.

This has been building for awhile, and especially the past 10 years. Cable companies are being antiquated and have a future of blockbuster video. They have it very good. Somehow legal racketeering, price fixing, and monopolistic behavior. They somehow own the exclusive ISP rights... and also worked on getting tentacles out into other things like buying content (such as Comcast/NBC).

They have been losing their grip as the proliferation of streaming options has taken hold and our information and technology moves toward that. They have held on to their sports blackout restriction thread as their last holdout to force consumers into maxing out. Their only business model is to preserve their monopolistic hold and practices.

This gives all the cards to the cable companies/telecoms. They can write the rules now and control the whole industry. Control the content we can access. Make us pay for content. Strategically organize content into tiers that extract the maximum amount of money out of each individual and family.

In short, Donald Trump and the Republicans can give a shit about you and me and this proves it.

Net Neutrality is Dead.

Comments

FCC Announces Plans To Repeal Net Neutrality

Trump’s FCC Chairman thinks Comcast should have even more control over your internet than it already does.

FCC Announces Plans To Repeal Net Neutrality

Trump’s FCC Chairman thinks Comcast should have even more control over your internet than it already does.

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories