Goodbye Internet Freedom? The FCC Is About To Prove Once Again Why They Should Be Shut Down

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Women and Beer.

See, wasn't that much easier?

[luckytxn 2,264]

OK lets see about one reason a Fed mandate on net neutrality is bad. They are putting their nose into what a company can or can't do. As an example lets take Comcast aforementioned. They want to restrict the bandwidth or the amount in a set time that heavy users can do to make the speed a more open end for all the users. A few users in an area use up most of the bandwidth by heavy gaming or download heavily etc. The other users get bad connections and slow speeds and thus are unhappy campers. Comcast then says that these heavy users will start being restricted so that the majority of their customers can have a pleasant internet experience. Of course the heavy users are unhappy and may even leave the company but they whine the loudest but they are the few.

Now the Feds will come and tell Comcast that they must not do any restriction at all and be open the same to everyone. They have now went and told Comcast what their business operations will be and not only that have maybe hurt that business by now having many unhappy customers instead of a few. This can definitely hurt their bottom line.

Now how I see it is that Comcast has cast their lot. Now competition can come along and undercut them and allow more bandwidth and speed to new customers and the ones that are unhappy with Comcast will go check them out. Now Comcast can try to actually compete and drop the thing that made everyone unhappy and even drop their price to compete and get back those customers. Now we have competitors working to compete. Comcast has had to drop a practice and be more net neutral.

Of course as stated Comcast has a monopoly in certain areas but from what I read only some. Monopoly is wrong and that should be fought. A monopoly usually means that some few in that community are reaping benefits that a majority do not. They can charge what they want and do as they please as they are the only game in town. These monopolies are the ones that when their contract comes up again as they do every certain number of years you demand that if they want a continued monopoly that they have to be net neutral and can only charge a set amount or competitors will be allowed in to make it thus. Now Comcast has to do what they should have done in the first place when they became larger and had the customers and that is to increase their infrastructure. Spend money to increase their bandwidth offering to match their customer base. Of course we all know that Comcast is trying to offer something that they want to be paid but there are competitors that also offer this. Netflix has been very successful with what they offer and are very popular but Comcast wants its share and started to offer the same thing but the customers have been stubborn and stuck to Netflix. Netflix users also take up a huge amount of bandwidth during certain times thus Comcast has been stifling the badwidth.

Now the Feds want to seem the knight in shining armor as usual but we all know that they only want to control things. The FCC was beotch slapped not too long ago for trying to overstep its congressional granted authority. They are stubborn folks though as the new admin want to control this huge market for their own sakes. They want to be able to stop websites they deem offensive and even to be able to block whole segments when they want. They actually want to tax the internet is the truth and not even that but to be able to make money by charging a fee. Yes I said it they want to own the internet. If they own the internet then they own most of the ideas and cultural history of this market.

Edited December 21, 2010 by luckytxn

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

OK lets see about one reason a Fed mandate on net neutrality is bad. They are putting their nose into what a company can or can't do. As an example lets take Comcast aforementioned. They want to restrict the bandwidth or the amount in a set time that heavy users can do to make the speed a more open end for all the users. A few users in an area use up most of the bandwidth by heavy gaming or download heavily etc. The other users get bad connections and slow speeds and thus are unhappy campers. Comcast then says that these heavy users will start being restricted so that the majority of their customers can have a pleasant internet experience. Of course the heavy users are unhappy and may even leave the company but they whine the loudest but they are the few.

Now the Feds will come and tell Comcast that they must not do any restriction at all and be open the same to everyone. They have now went and told Comcast what their business operations will be and not only that have maybe hurt that business by now having many unhappy customers instead of a few. This can definitely hurt their bottom line.

Now how I see it is that Comcast has cast their lot. Now competition can come along and undercut them and allow more bandwidth and speed to new customers and the ones that are unhappy with Comcast will go check them out. Now Comcast can try to actually compete and drop the thing that made everyone unhappy and even drop their price to compete and get back those customers. Now we have competitors working to compete. Comcast has had to drop a practice and be more net neutral.

Of course as stated Comcast has a monopoly in certain areas but from what I read only some. Monopoly is wrong and that should be fought. A monopoly usually means that some few in that community are reaping benefits that a majority do not. They can charge what they want and do as they please as they are the only game in town. These monopolies are the ones that when their contract comes up again as they do every certain number of years you demand that if they want a continued monopoly that they have to be net neutral and can only charge a set amount or competitors will be allowed in to make it thus. Now Comcast has to do what they should have done in the first place when they became larger and had the customers and that is to increase their infrastructure. Spend money to increase their bandwidth offering to match their customer base. Of course we all know that Comcast is trying to offer something that they want to be paid but there are competitors that also offer this. Netflix has been very successful with what they offer and are very popular but Comcast wants its share and started to offer the same thing but the customers have been stubborn and stuck to Netflix. Netflix users also take up a huge amount of bandwidth during certain times thus Comcast has been stifling the badwidth.

Now the Feds want to seem the knight in shining armor as usual but we all know that they only want to control things. The FCC was beotch slapped not too long ago for trying to overstep its congressional granted authority. They are stubborn folks though as the new admin want to control this huge market for their own sakes. They want to be able to stop websites they deem offensive and even to be able to block whole segments when they want. They actually want to tax the internet is the truth and not even that but to be able to make money by charging a fee. Yes I said it they want to own the internet. If they own the internet then they own most of the ideas and cultural history of this market.

Bandwidth restrictions are only a small superficial part of the issue. The real issue is that Comcast could potentially restrict a user from visiting a site all together. Such as a competitor.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Sousuke

[luckytxn 2,264]

Bandwidth restrictions are only a small superficial part of the issue. The real issue is that Comcast could potentially restrict a user from visiting a site all together. Such as a competitor.

Well Duh!

[mawilson 2,133]

OK lets see about one reason a Fed mandate on net neutrality is bad. They are putting their nose into what a company can or can't do.

Which is their job.

If a company wants to dump toxic waste into a nearby river, thereby saving a lot

of money, it's the government's job to correct their behavior.

If a company engages in deceptive advertising, marketing or sales practices, it's

the government's job to assure compliance with the law.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Which is their job.

If a company wants to dump toxic waste into a nearby river, thereby saving a lot

of money, it's the government's job to correct their behavior.

If a company engages in deceptive advertising, marketing or sales practices, it's

the government's job to assure compliance with the law.

Then is it when you require that business to do certain things and then it loses its customer base then the government should then pay that business the losses?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Then is it when you require that business to do certain things and then it loses its customer base then the government should then pay that business the losses?

See: those who suffer from smoking bans and have to close down...

[mawilson 2,133]

Then is it when you require that business to do certain things and then it loses its customer base then the government should then pay that business the losses?

Not really. If your business cannot operate within the limits set by the law, you go out of business.

See: those who suffer from smoking bans and have to close down...

Please name one place that had to close down because of the smoking ban.

[^_^ 5,021]

Please name one place that had to close down because of the smoking ban.

I think I was in college when New Jersey decided that nude strip clubs could no longer serve alcohol and if they wanted to serve alcohol, the girls could no longer be nude (they became bikini bars). I still recall the outcry in the local newspapers about how all these bars are going to go out of business.

All these years later, the only clubs around me that have shut down have shut down because of narcotics and prostitution busts.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Please name one place that had to close down because of the smoking ban.

The entire 4th floor of the Mall of America (with the exception of Hooters). Several bars in Eastern MN shut down close to the WI border. Bars + Smoking go hand in hand.

I don't care so much about banning smoking in restaurants or requiring seperate ventalation... but banning smoking in bars and adult establishments is absurd...

[^_^ 5,021]

The entire 4th floor of the Mall of America (with the exception of Hooters). Several bars in Eastern MN shut down close to the WI border. Bars + Smoking go hand in hand.

I don't care so much about banning smoking in restaurants or requiring seperate ventalation... but banning smoking in bars and adult establishments is absurd...

Smoking is illegal in every bar in New Jersey and has been for a few years. Every bar in the neighboring college town is still in business.

Mall of America? I hear that's really lame, any truth to the rumors?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Smoking is illegal in every bar in New Jersey and has been for a few years. Every bar in the neighboring college town is still in business.

Mall of America? I hear that's really lame, any truth to the rumors?

*college town = key to staying in business there lol.... gotta get young girls drunk!

The MOA is pretty lame... Just a big mall with the same stores throughout 3 or 4 times... though the indoor amusement park is pretty cool... The 4th floor was awesome before the smoking ban as well. There was a bowling alley, sports bar with TVs at every table, full-size gameworks style arcade, food options galore, etc.... As I said though, only thing to survive that was Hooters. I wonder why!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Smoking is illegal in every bar in New Jersey and has been for a few years. Every bar in the neighboring college town is still in business.

Mall of America? I hear that's really lame, any truth to the rumors?

The rumors are true, unless you're 12, or just like pokemon and malls a bit too much.

[^_^ 5,021]

... only thing to survive that was Hooters. I wonder why!

... it's the wings

[^_^ 5,021]

The rumors are true, unless you're 12, or just like pokemon and malls a bit too much.

I spent a few months back in 2000 working for a tech consulting firm and was on the road all the time. The guy they had me traveling with was this big dude with a ton of facial hair and a chip on his shoulder about everything. He used to take his family to the MOA every year for their annual vacation. And he didn't live close either, dude lived in SC.