[opendtv] Re: B&C: Diller: Net Neutrality Is Essentially Unassailable
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:05:50 -0500
On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:14 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He seems to be saying that net neutrality will stand, just because that's the
"practice of the world."
He’s correct. No ISP would block legal content today in the “free world.”
I wouldn't be so sanguine. For example, it sure is not the practice in China.
DUH.
I’m not supporting what the Chinese government is doing, but it is entirely
consistent with their efforts to control the information its populations can
access, and to block Internet services that compete with similar Chinese
services.
Did you read the article I posted yesterday about Amazon Web Services pulling
out of China Bert?
Since Bert feels obliged to turn every post into a Net Neutrality screed, I try
turning his post into an entirely different polarizing debate...
China is willing to invest in winning at any cost. It is “gratifying” that they
are willing to subsidize solar panels to help create green energy jobs in the
U.S.; not so gratifying that they are responsible for real climate change due
to aerosol emissions:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2218/global-is-the-new-local-pollution-changes-clouds-climate-downstream/
That's a huge part of the world right there.
Yup. And a huge part of the Global warming scam, which seeks to limit our
emissions, while the developing economies in Asia are subsidized, even as they,
and most of Europe continue to increase their emissions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453727/un-climate-change-conference-usa-should-skip
The story of this climate conference should be Germany’s epic climate fail.
Already the German government has admitted that it will overshoot its 2020
emissions-reduction target by 12.5 percent (an estimate since raised to 25
percent) and that it is likely to miss its 2040 target by an even larger
amount. Apart from a few isolated protesters outside the conference hall, you
wouldn’t know that a few miles from Bonn, a forest is being dug up to make
way for a lignite-coal mine. Thanks to Germany’s reliance on lignite and its
low heat-energy content, German power-station emissions increased by 17.2
million metric tons between 1999 and 2012. Over the same period, American
power-station emissions cut theirs by nearly ten times that amount — 170.1
million tons.
Maybe we should have a debate about “carbon neutrality.”
Bert continues to steer us into the ditch...
Plus, it is not even in the culture of the broadband service providers, which
is why they are so strenuously insisting that they be allowed to be
non-neutral. The idea of mandated neutrality must still sound foreign to them.
Sorry Bert but Diller was right on the money - neutrality IS the culture of
broadband service providers. They have no choice, given the uproar that would
occur now if any ISP tried to block a legal Internet service in the U.S.
The idea of FCC regulation of the Internet, disguised as an attempt to assure
Net Neutrality, is the real issue here Bert.
What sounds foreign to every company that provides broadband OR an Internet
service, is the notion that they should be subject to the political whims of
five unelected regulators serving at the pleasure of the political party
currently in the White House.
He should have made a stronger case. The standing telecom laws would have to
be reversed, to allow non-neutral operation of telecoms!
Why not just eliminate these laws. They are hopelessly irrelevant today, based
on a heavy handed regulatory philosophy that has largely been replaced with
REAL competition thanks to deregulation.
How is it possible I get my POTS service from an unregulated VOIP provider?
Do you really believe that the U.S. telcos would survive if any one of them
blocked access to the subscribers of their competitors?
That is patently absurd.
"Diller's interview comes as some in Congress are calling for the government
to apply the same kind of net neutrality restrictions on edge providers as
are on ISPs."
That sounds totally idiotic, unless by "edge providers" one can think no
further than Twitter of Facebook.
No Bert. Diller was talking about proposed regulation of companies like Akamai
and - brace yourself - Comcast Technology Services:
https://www.comcasttechnologysolutions.com/our-portfolio/video-platform/content-delivery-network
Let's see. So, I go to moen.com. I should expect Moen to carry all other
brands of faucets on their site too? Or more, every other product in the
universe, on their web site? Moen should not be allowed to exclude other
makes of products? Really?
Just the kind of inane nonsense that should not require infinite arguments.
Just too freakin' stupid (and a total waste of time).
Talk about inane nonsense Bert. We all know what edge providers - aka CDNs -
are. Sadly, it appears you are using the definition proposed by the FCC in 2014:
http://www.separatinghyperplanes.com/2015/03/what-is-edge-provider.html
Here's how the FCC defined terms back in their first attempt at net
neutrality regulation in October 2014:
Edge Provider. Any individual or entity that provides any content,
application, or service over the Internet, and any individual or entity that
provides a device used for accessing any content, application, or service
over the Internet.
Rather all encompassing isn’t it?
Yet you persist in trying to convince us that ONLY the FCC has the ability to
enforce Net Neutrality, and that they will do this in a completely neutral
manner...
NOT!
Kinda like Germany telling us that we need to stay in the Paris Accord to
prevent global warming...
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
