U.S. Appeals Court kills net neutrality

[FORD]

Seriously?

These last few posts make you sound like you're a lobbyist for one of these huge cable monopolies.

What could possibly be "stupid" about paying only for the TV channels you actually want to watch?

Why do I even need shopping channels, religious channels, FAUX Noize, the goddamned "golf" channel, Spanish channels, Korean channels, the Oprah network, the Dumbfuck Dynasty, channel, and dozens of other useless shit reality shows that I will never watch coming in to my house? Why should I have to pay for that?

(Truth is, I don't anymore, and that is a big part of the "why", but I'm speaking rhetorically here)

[FORD]

Oh, and by the way..... guess where Mikey Powell works now?

http://www.ncta.com/who-we-are/leadership/bio/169

CEO of the cable industry lobbyists. Well isn't that fucking special?

[Redballjets88]

The problem with it is that it isn't the governments job to tell them how to sell their product. If the idea is worthwhile and demand is high enough one of the companies will make the innovation.

[FORD]

You know what would encourage innovation?

Competition. And that's not possible when you have 3 or 4 cable companies controlling most of the cable market in the US, and acting as monopolies, since there is never more than one of those in any given market.

When I first moved to my current address, I was paying Scumcast $39.95 for 70+ cable channels AND cable internet access. Now I'm paying them $65 for ONLY the internet. That's not innovation. That's pure greed, and they get away with it, because there are no other options. It's a monopoly. (Technically, there's always Century Link 1.5.mbps DSL, but that's a goddamned joke, and I would need to pay them a $500 deposit and subscribe to shitty overpriced landline phone package in order to get it. Which means I would pay them even more money than Scumcast, for even less internet.)

Pretty much the only way to save ANYTHING in this country is to roll back every last stinking shitty policy of the last 33 years which have done absolutely nothing to help the American people, and everything to enable corporatist consolidation and greed.

[Redballjets88]

What's better than government forced competition? True competitive innovation as in Apple TV, Hulu, Netflix, companies like UFC and WWE launching streaming cheap non cable alternatives for people.

When the government steps in and demands that the cable companies change it makes the consumers less likely to gravitate toward the better option on the horizon.

And if worse comes to worse pirate everything.

[FORD]

Apple TV, Roku, or the open source XBMC (which I personally endorse) are all great things. Hulu - even though it is owned by the industry itself, as a joint venture of Di$ney, Universal, and Murdoch - was a decent alternative as far as content delivery, especially when combined with one of the previously mentioned streamng devices. Up until recently, I was able to stream pretty much any network show I wanted on my TV through a Hulu XBMC plug in, with only the minor inconvenience of it being a day late.

Notice I said "WAS".

That's because, as of January 6, Di$ney complied with the cable industry criminals push to lock down access to content, and now you have to be a cable tv subscriber in order to stream any of their content. Thus rendering the entire point of streaming useless. It's called cord-cutting for a reason, but now the greedy industry has figured out how to strangle cord cutters with the very cords they cut. Universal is all but guaranteed to follow this practice, as they are owned by Scumcast, and Murdoch will follow suit because he's a greedy fucking bastard.

And what if you live in a major metro area and can actually get network TV from a digital antenna? Doesn't matter.... you still have to pay a cable company before you can watch it online. That's bullshit.

[Seshmeister]

People are far too stupid to realize how incredibly important this is and with a political system owned by big business I think you may be fucked...

What I'm less clear on is when the US starts getting an internet service like China but censored by corporations rather than government, how will that affect the rest of us?

This site is currently hosted in the US, if Verizon decide they don't like this thread I can of course move it to somewhere like Sweden where pretty much anything goes but what I can't do is still allow Verizon customers in the US to access it they decide to block it or make it super slow.

This is a dripping tap thing, pretend you are playing checkers and think ahead a move or two FFS...

[Seshmeister]

You know what would encourage innovation?

Competition. And that's not possible when you have 3 or 4 cable companies controlling most of the cable market in the US, and acting as monopolies, since there is never more than one of those in any given market.

Exactly - it's been done here quite a few times and if you think government is bad try a fucking private monopoly.

A private company with a monopoly is 10 times worse than any government run shit, it is the worst of all worlds.

Of course everyone knows this, they happen when you get public apathy + a bunch of backhanders + bullshit conservative ideology.

[Redballjets88]

Idealology aside what huge difference has either party made on this or any other issue that holds any weight?

[Redballjets88]

I love the vitriol toward the injustice of it, but what can be done beyond giving the public knowledge? Regulations and laws inevitably lead to more problems and less liberty.

[fraroc]

If one thing is for certain, if any serious changes really do happen to the internet, I can almost guarantee that Anonymous is going to go into full "I've Had Enough (Into The Fire)" mode.

[FORD]

Idealology aside what huge difference has either party made on this or any other issue that holds any weight?

Since 1980, not much. Even the "Democrats" have acted like Republicans. In fact Clinton arguably did more damage in this area than Reagan did, when he signed that ridiculous "Telecommunications Reform Act" in 1996. It was passed by the Dole/Gingrich congress, of course. But he could have vetoed it. And should have. That one act directly enabled the creation of Clear Channel, and for Murdoch to expand his international propaganda empire, not to mention all the other media consolidation that followed.

[FORD]

I love the vitriol toward the injustice of it, but what can be done beyond giving the public knowledge? Regulations and laws inevitably lead to more problems and less liberty.

The last 33 years prove that exactly the opposite is true. It's the deregulation that has brought on all this corporate consolidation, to the point where any major industry is controlled by 4 or 5 huge corporations, and in some cases - as it is with cable providers - you don't even get to choose from those 4 or 5, you just get one. And if nobody is regulating that one, they can charge whatever they want, disrupt your service however they want, have outsourced call center employees from India call you at 6:00 in the morning whenever they want, and just generally treat their customers like shit, because - well, where the Hell else are they gonna go?

[Redballjets88]

And I go back to my argument about new technologies arriving that will create competition. It's the beauty of the free market...even through the cracks of over regulation and corporate monopolies we still have innovations coming through.

The cable industry is falling behind and will be forced to compete soon. There are other companies waiting to snatch up any section of the market available (apple, Microsoft, Sony etc etc etc) so at this moment should we be regulating how people get their internet/streaming capabilities or should we give some slack to the regulations that inhibit others from joining the mix and being able to compete in the first place?

The market will win inevitably. If you truly believe that without intervention we will be stuck with what we have now forever you're crazy

[Redballjets88]

It may be a large burden for some but coming from the millinial generation it's about 50/50 with who has cable. And everyone I know (married, single, kids or no kids) has no real complaint. It's strictly their choice. Not to mention many lower income families get free basic channels with the apartments they live in (free market solution)

It's all just a choice.