LogFAQs > #892663062

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	So that Net Neutrality vote is happening now right?
foolm0r0n 12/21/17 10:53:41 PM #207:	VintageGin posted... damn dude, have a little more respect-- I don't lump you and smartmuffin together You used the exact same weird phrase as Tomba to dismiss my position. If I start saying the same dumb shit as Muffin then feel free to lump us together. Anyways the point is the FCC can choose to support local/state policies, or it can override them, and it's all based on politics. Obviously the big guys like this because they can afford all the lobbying, but it doesn't help any competition or consumers. VintageGin posted... With the FCC regulations in place, the worst case scenario is that Comcast gets everything it wants. Your solution to this is apparently that we should get rid of the FCC's influence entirely, meaning that Comcast gets everything it wants by default. This only makes sense if you think Comcast is disadvantaged by local fees and regulations, and it is disadvantaged by the massive lobbying costs that are required to get the FCC to allow you to do your thing. I don't see how you can think that unless you really love Ajit Pai. For example your LMI and my friends' local ISPs all started doing their thing before 2015 and before any common carrier enforcement. Your Comcast doomsday didn't happen then. What DID happen was million (billions?) spent on lobbying the FCC and Congress for special benefits. Obviously if the FCC loses control, then nothing instantly changes, due to established infrastructure and local laws and deals. But the point is FCC Title II oversight is a massive wall that can be taken down and make the barrier to entry easier. VintageGin posted... You keep assuming that I don't want any change when all I'm saying is I don't want this change. I'm assuming you don't want to change the fact that 5 dudes at the FCC can control your local ISP, because that is what you are defending. If you have some ideas for fixing ISP monopoly corporatism without changing the 5 dudes at the FCC then I want to hear it. Talking about a dream FCC that does everything you want means nothing. --- _foolmo_ 2 + 2 = 4 <cite>foolm0r0n posted [p:892663062] in So that Ne... [t:76098140]...</cite> <quote><cite>VintageGin posted...</cite> <quote>damn dude, have a little more respect-- I don't lump you and smartmuffin together </quote> You used the exact same weird phrase as Tomba to dismiss my position. If I start saying the same dumb shit as Muffin then feel free to lump us together. Anyways the point is the FCC can choose to support local/state policies, or it can override them, and it's all based on politics. Obviously the big guys like this because they can afford all the lobbying, but it doesn't help any competition or consumers. <cite>VintageGin posted...</cite> <quote>With the FCC regulations in place, the worst case scenario is that Comcast gets everything it wants. Your solution to this is apparently that we should get rid of the FCC's influence entirely, meaning that Comcast gets everything it wants by default.</quote> This only makes sense if you think Comcast is disadvantaged by local fees and regulations, and it is disadvantaged by the massive lobbying costs that are required to get the FCC to allow you to do your thing. I don't see how you can think that unless you really love Ajit Pai. For example your LMI and my friends' local ISPs all started doing their thing before 2015 and before any common carrier enforcement. Your Comcast doomsday didn't happen then. What DID happen was million (billions?) spent on lobbying the FCC and Congress for special benefits. Obviously if the FCC loses control, then nothing instantly changes, due to established infrastructure and local laws and deals. But the point is FCC Title II oversight is a massive wall that can be taken down and make the barrier to entry easier. <cite>VintageGin posted...</cite> <quote>You keep assuming that I don't want any change when all I'm saying is I don't want this change.</quote> I'm assuming you don't want to change the fact that 5 dudes at the FCC can control your local ISP, because that is what you are defending. If you have some ideas for fixing ISP monopoly corporatism without changing the 5 dudes at the FCC then I want to hear it. Talking about a dream FCC that does everything you want means nothing. --- _foolmo_ 2 + 2 = 4</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1