Let me spell it out for you then since you apparently can't see the connection on your own.
T-Mobile has struck a deal (ostensibly) with one or more music services to give them special treatment on the T-Mobile network. How is that any different than the NFL striking a deal w/ Gatorade (ignoring that the NFL deal is actually a monopoly deal and the T-Mobile one is not)?
So should the NFL, for example, not be allowed to negotiate an agreement with Gatorade because doing so would harm smaller beverage makers from getting onto the sidelines of NFL games?
I watched the show. Mildly entertaining and there appears to be some potential with a couple of the characters. Obviously you have to take the high-stakes heroics with a massive grain of salt.
He is not trying to create "legal time travel". If the grounds on which the warrant were issued turned out to be bogus then all things gathered or seized because of that warrant are bogus as well. It's called "fruit of the poisonous tree".
"Having 5 sets of cables is inefficient if the exact same services from the same companies could be delivered over one set."
Right, because there's no difference between 2-wire copper and fiber-optic cabling.
"The same is not true of restaurants."
Based on your logic why couldn't we also assume all pizza joints are the same because they all make pizza? You and I both know not all pizza is made equally. Why do you assume that all internet service would be delivered equally?
and NN won't address the core problem -- a lack of openness, which leads to a lack of competition. Nationalizing ISPs and turning them into public utilities won't magically cause prices to go down and service quality to go up. It's simply an excuse to centralize more power in the Federal Gov't. How is that a superior outcome?
As I stated, if NN was about improving service, the discussion would be about opening up the system to competition -- eliminating right-of-way legislation and abolishing exclusivity agreements -- not giving the government more power over private businesses. When the government takes things over, service doesn't magically improve, nor does the cost of it decrease.
Inefficient according to whom? You? It's inefficient that there's 14 italian restaurants to choose from and 48 pizza joints.
Regarding feasibility and incentive: We won't know for certain until it happens, but I'd argue there likely is if a new player sees how he could supply better or cheaper service.
The ideal way to open up competition is to open up the ability to run cables. That means abolishing right of way legislation and exclusivity agreements.
Net neutrality is about treating all data equally yes? To prevent an a la carte purchasing plan (as evidenced by the graphic produced here: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/how-the-end-of-net-neutrality-might-look-to-an-ordinar y-customer/)? Is there any evidence of ISPs doing that now or is this legislation attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist? If it doesn't currently exist, is the existing internet set to expire at some point and then this scenario would come into being?
The gov wants to control (at first) how data is shaped while it is in someone's network. That's controlling the flow of data. But do you think the government would stop there? Of course not. They never stop there.
The internet doesn't work because you have a freakin piece of copper wire running under your lawn. Switches, routers, racks, patch panels, servers and all of that is what makes the internet work and it wasn't the government that purchased it, it isn't the government that operates it and it isn't the government that maintains it. All of that is private property and "net neutrality" is about controlling that private property.
You're talking about 1 component - the physical cable that connects your home to some junction center. But it takes a helluva lot more than a piece of copper wire to make the internet work. Switches, routers, servers, racks, patch panels, satellites, and all of that equipment wasn't purchased by the government, isn't operated by the government and isn't maintained by the government. Those things are private property and THAT is what makes the internet work, and THAT is what the government wants control of.
And why don't telco's care about the consumer? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO! There is virtually no competition because THE GOVERNMENT sold them exclusivity agreements and has nonsense right-of-way rules in place to prevent new competitors from entering the market.
The solution to this is not to consolidate power in the government because they care even less about us than Comcast. At least Comcast never came out and said "We don't spy on our citizens."
But if it were found out that Comcast said that and lied (and this stuff always comes out) then we could sue Comcast. Because of byzantine bureaucratic rules and "national security" protections, suing the gov't is damn near impossible.
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
T-Mobile has struck a deal (ostensibly) with one or more music services to give them special treatment on the T-Mobile network. How is that any different than the NFL striking a deal w/ Gatorade (ignoring that the NFL deal is actually a monopoly deal and the T-Mobile one is not)?
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality
On the post: Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius?
On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'
Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, because there's no difference between 2-wire copper and fiber-optic cabling.
"The same is not true of restaurants."
Based on your logic why couldn't we also assume all pizza joints are the same because they all make pizza? You and I both know not all pizza is made equally. Why do you assume that all internet service would be delivered equally?
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regarding feasibility and incentive: We won't know for certain until it happens, but I'd argue there likely is if a new player sees how he could supply better or cheaper service.
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: "private" indeed...
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re:
On the post: Internet Slowdown Day Generated 1,000 Calls Per Minute To Congress
Re: Re: Re:
The solution to this is not to consolidate power in the government because they care even less about us than Comcast. At least Comcast never came out and said "We don't spy on our citizens."
But if it were found out that Comcast said that and lied (and this stuff always comes out) then we could sue Comcast. Because of byzantine bureaucratic rules and "national security" protections, suing the gov't is damn near impossible.
Next >>