There's nothing new under the sun,
but there are lots of old things we don't know.
Ambrose Bierce
Nanny of the Month
Hall of Shame: Border Patrol
Youtube Place: Net Neutrality Kerfuffle Part II
"I agree the isp's probably bribed the fcc"--how ill-informed are you? There were national news stories on why FCC changed the rules..I will write a separate comment above rather than repeat myself here.
....
Outside of Shep Smith's anti-market rant (I mean, really: banning ISP's from offering premium service for resource hogs? This is rather like requiring USPS to charge no more for a 200-lb. package than a one-ounce letter; the FCC illegally tried to extend its authority to micromanaging how ISP's handled their network loads, implement pushing-on-a-string regulations over coverage of websites--there are thousands of ISP's. The free market works; if you can't get the coverage or service you want, there are competitors willing to take your money), I'm seeing comments of the like that the FCC flip was based on "cronyism" or other such claptrap. Shep pays lip service to court rulings, but let's just dig a little deeper.
After the FCC unilaterally extended its dubious legal authority over ISP's with its crony special interest "net neutrality" intervention, Verizon and/or other ISP's challenged this authority and in at least one federal district court decision in 2010, the court agreed that the FCC had overstepped its limited authority by statute. The FCC appealed the adverse decision; then in January of this year as reported in the Gray Lady, a federal appeals court reaffirmed the ruling that ISP's could market premium services to content providers. In February, the FCC announced that it would not appeal to SCOTUS and would revise its rules accordingly. So the flip in the FCC's rule banning premium services had nothing to do with "cronyism" but rather conformity with the rule by law, which reaffirmed business property rights.
The internet should be treated like national infrastructure, a network equally provided to all competitors of the free market without costs. This FCC proposal is nothing more than cronyism.
The infrastructure linking you to the Internet was not designed or paid for by the government but by the private sector. You are not compelled to purchase the services of any ISP, and as I mentioned above, it's a highly competitive, fragmented market. For ISPs to carry large amounts of video requires significant capacity, investment and network management; the private sector does not need federal micromanagement--it makes money by providing what consumers want, and the free market ensures competition. As for the FCC rule change, as I explained in a separate comment elsewhere, it was forced by federal courts which ruled the FCC had overstepped its authority in asserting, under existing status, that ISPs could not offer premium services.
Then why do they take subsidies? As long as ISPs take subsidies, they should abide by NN rules. Killing NN kills jobs and stifles innovation. The internet is a major contributor to the GDP.
This is a red herring. What I've seen is the FCC is trying to bribe ISP's to implement otherwise infeasible buildouts (given remote location and/or sparse consumer base), and a number of big providers have taken a pass. The short answer is, of course, they shouldn't; there are consequences to sleeping with whores. Federal money always comes with strings attached. And stop quoting the stealth government progapanda phrase "net neutrality"; it's just "Progressive" slang for busybody government trying, once again, to intervene on behalf of the real special interests.
The limited I've seen on this topic have dealt with an extension of rural community hookups, just like obsolete landline communication links. This was a redistributive policy that taxed more urban/suburban telephone customers in a subsidization NOT OF PROVIDERS, BUT RURAL COMMUNITIES. So, for example, a DSL implementation may not be viable for rural areas. In the developing world, many middle class skip landline and go straight to wireless; I saw this when I visited Brazil in 1995. Are rural, sparse communities SOL? No; for instance, satellite communication might be a viable technology.
As for the importance of the Internet economy, we don't need a fascist central government in bed with Big Providers. The Internet economy has developed nicely not because of but despite Big Government.
I don't think you know the implication of ending NN. Would you want the internet to be provided in bundles like how cable service is provided? That's what the FCC is proposing. Quit with the ideological terms. We're talking practically here.
Don't throw around BS propaganda terms like lipstick on a pig "net neutrality". The Internet is and has been open long before this lawless administration used it to drive their Statist agenda. Like I said, there are thousands of ISP's in the US, and if your current provider doesn't meet your needs, "vote" for an accommodating provider. Cable TV as we know it will change as content providers provide multiple paths. I did without cable TV for years--if I like a show, I can go to Netflix, Hulu, etc., wait for the content to be published on DVD, etc. It's funny you're accusing ME of being ideological when you're advocating grossly incompetent government to intervene, when the Internet has flourished despite government's attempts to mess with private sector success.
Facebook Corner
(Reason). We went to yesterday's LA Clippers Protest to talk to protesters about the NBA banning Donald Sterling for life, how free markets react to racism, institutionalized racism, and more.
In a free market THE CONSUMER RULES. The NBA commissioner basically sacrificed Sterling to the god of political correctness. What does an unauthorized disclosure of a wiretapped private conversation have to do with Sterling's NBA agreement? What owner or what player hasn't said or done something in private that doesn't reflect well on the league. (Say, for instance, Chamberlain's promiscuous activities.) I don't think what Sterling said reflects very well on him as a person, but let's get real--it's not like he decided to pay his more talented black players less than white players or was personally abusive to his players. He probably should have said to his then girlfriend, "Look, I'm a private person. I would prefer you not posting pictures of you with other guys while we're in a relationship." I think what Sterling did was stupid, but a contract is not a one-sided wild-card agreement.
(IPI). You’re not signed up unless you pay. And in Illinois, half of #ObamaCare “enrollees” haven’t paid for their premium. That puts the Land of Lincoln well below the national average. Nationwide, just 67% of those the Obama administration counted as “enrolled” in the Affordable Care Act had paid their premiums as of April 15.
Just wait until next year's premiums...
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Except at government schools..
(I had a browser issue and lost the thread; but my rant below
These leftist nuts continue to buy into the Big Business conspiracies. Big Business can't force any customer to buy its goods or services; only Big Government has the force to steal from everybody. Only Big Government can print trillions of unbacked dollars out of thin air and thus finance its own deficits, while running up an estimated $80-210T in unfunded entitlement liabilities while plundering less than $3T annually. The bulk of Big Government's spending now goes for individual entitlements, NOT corporate coffers. It also saddles businesses with a $1.8T regulatory burden. Tell me, what Big Business could ever run up unprecedented debt and obligations, vast Ponzi schemes, would ever tolerate the huge tax and regulatory burden if it was "in charge"?
We need to get government out of the health care sector immediately. The idea that political whores can bend the cost curve vs. exacerbate sector inflation is pure hubris. Free the healthcare sector from unaccountable public sector bureaucratic despotism.
I find it disgusting and disturbing that other peoples health and well being is not everyone's main priority after themselves. No matter the cost.
Everyone should be vested in their own healthcare and related expenditures, not some delusional attempts by Leviathan to plan the sector, which only serves to increase costs for everyone. I'm disgusted by your frittering away the next generation's resources.
Are you a republican? If yes, then Do you disagree with Medicaid expansion? Well, if you do, then you should probably look for another party because your party has made Medicaid part of their platform.
Quick--how many Dem governors refused the ObamaCare loss-leader bribe to reject the morally and fiscally irresponsible Medicaid expansion? None. Did any GOP governors do the right thing? Yup: TX, LA, KS, SC, AL, FL and others.
Wrong target. Far more money is spent on war at a much greater human cost. Much higher priority.
No, BOTH need to be radically scaled back.
It the cost of emergency medical care do everyone that uninsured would cost... Oh yeah. At least that much.
Nonsense. Statistics prove that insured people (including government programs) use more medical goods and services than uninsured without compensatory improved outcomes
Legalize pot in all states, taxes from weed would get states all the money they need
Stop smoking weed and you'll be able to understand what you just wrote is crap. I'm not arguing against reform in the War on Drugs, but the idea you'll be able to raise trillions of dollars from sales taxes on weed is purely delusional.
Separating our Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounts from the discretionary budget our leaders apparently feel obligated to squander every year would not cost us anything.
Not clear what you mean here; these programs are already classified mandatory spending with built-in program increases. What is true is that it takes special legislative effort to reform mandatory spending, which comprises over 60% of the federal budget.
Lives dont have price tags on them.
Yes, they do. That's what life insurance is all about. But the fact is that government exacerbates health issues while claiming to solve them. Rationing healthcare often results in cruel suffering and deaths while on waiting lists, cf. recent Arizona VA hospital scandal.
Isn't that what we spend on war in 12 minutes.
Actually, our national defense costs about 19% of the federal budget. About 22% is spend on individual healthcare, about two-thirds on Medicare. Keep in mind up to half the cost of Medicaid is paid by the states, so a ballpark on government spending approximates nearly 30% of the equivalent in federal spending.
Make religious congregations that insert themselves into politics pay taxes. Make the corporations and the wealthy pay what they owe (including their fair share) and things will start to get better
No. The Politics of Envy, stealing from other people's wallets, cannot resolve the Ponzi scheme economics behind government healthcare programs. What we need is a liberation of the healthcare sector from megalomaniac interventionist government.
Marriage and Family
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Bob Gorrell via Townhall |
The Eagles, "Desperado"
