myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
NET NEUTRALITY
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2276
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:

"Blatant partisanship"! Wow!! Unelected government officials institute regulations that effectively nationalize a huge segment of the economy, developed by freewheeling entrepreneurs, that has been a massive engine for growth in this country for the past decade and a half, and do so in secret with no opportunity for public comment..........yet you see objections to that behavior as "partisan"! Your comments do more to reveal your own partisanship than the comments of the objectors. Hopefully the courts will be more enlightened than you appear to be. SNIP


The vote of unelected government officials was 3 in favor (all D) and 2 against (all R). That is the structure of majority rule of the FCC. If the Republicans controlled and voted in step the vote would've been reversed, again on party lines. The only difference would be that you'd seem to prefer that result over what happened.

I wish to correct your misstatement that the FCC did so with[out any] opportunity for public comment. To wit, FCC Proceeding 14-28 was open for public comment since May 15, 2014. Since that time, the FCC accepted over two million public comments. 2,054,244 to be precise. I believe that's more than none, but my math could be rusty . . . You can verify quantity if not quality of comment here: Link to comment here. I removed the huge link to return page to normal size. Sorry about that.

You probably know this but the FCC's "Open Internet Order" of 2013 that spawned a lawsuit opposed by the FFC, who's position was mostly affirmed by the D.C. Cir App., resulted in the reforms we now see. Prior to the Open Internet Order, the FCC held a public comment period and received over 100,000 comments.

To quote directly from the Report and Order, Commission staff held several public workshops and convened a Technological Advisory Process with experts from industry, academia, and consumer advocacy groups to collect their views regarding key technical issues related to Internet openness." https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf (See page 17906 for the referenced text).

These are not my opinions, these are facts. Your opinion may be that the FCC order is without merit and/or suspect in procedure, that all or most testimony to the FCC was hand-picked or never really happened, or that I'm unenlightened. Perhaps, though I try not to offer false statements to support my conclusions.

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org


Last edited by DanWeiss on Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:25 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 13029
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must confess to an unseemly joy in watching mrgybe soil his britches again and again over net neutrality. He cannot make a coherent argument. Rather than respond like an adult to my showing that it was necessary to regulate car manufacturers to achieve safer, higher mileage vehicles, he attacks me personally (regulate everything) Save lives becomes regulate everything? Batshit crazy hyperbole continues. The magic hand of the market will do it--show us. Kiss kiss mrgybe, you keep losing and I'm enjoying it.

The GOP has been in the pocket of the predatory cable companies like Comcast for a long time. They have tried to block Obama appointees to the FCC for most of his term--most recently Ted Cruz held up the Wheeler appointee. The wailing over the use of appointed official shows a certain level of hysteria, and an absence of understanding of the US regulatory system. Perhaps we need more comprehensive citizenship tests that demonstrate an understanding? Congress sets up regulatory systems when it deems that there is a problem and that we will get more efficient or equitable results through an administrative agency than through the courts. The current Congress doesn't have the bandwidth to deal with immigration, much less esoteric matters like regulations.

Wheeler had initially sided with the Republicans on the FCC until Obama twisted his arm. Hint to the archbishop--that's called leadership. It's what is necessary to pass a health care act in the face of unrelenting GOP games. Contrast it with what went on in the House over the last two months and particularly the last week.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3469

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac said:
Quote:
Rather than respond like an adult to my showing that it was necessary to regulate car manufacturers to achieve safer, higher mileage vehicles


One has to wonder where cars would be today if there hadn't been
any government regulations imposed over the last 50 years. It seems as though cars made pretty good progress before government got involved.
What would consumer demand have generated if the free market system had 100% control? Mac assumes no or little safety and mileage progress
would have been made, and it's only the government's intervention that has saved us from ourselves.

I don't know the answer to this, but in Europe, have the governments regulated vehicle MPG and or safety standards? Or has the price of fuel and consumer demands generated smaller, safer and higher mileage cars
Of course, governments has taxed gas up the wazoo, but has the free
market system generated better and higher mileage cars or was it
government intervention that was responsible? Probably both, but
I haven't done the research.

Another way to look at it is that cars have always been safe, it's the idiot
drivers behind the wheel that are the problem. Since the system allows
idiots behind the wheel, then we have to pad all the walls to protect them
from themselves. A little off the wall? Yes, but not that far from reality.

By the way, why do some posts run on forever to the right so you have
to move the page over and over to read them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 13029
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--a sensible question. You are mostly right on the European car mileage issue. Virtually all of the countries in Europe tax gasoline heavily, which assures that car efficiency will be delivered by the market. The public--that is government--investments in road infrastructure reinforce that signal with a design based on a smaller car. I would readily agree that economic signals are more efficient than regulatory structures, and that if we had established a progressive fuel tax as suggested by Jimmy Carter, we would have had more efficient cars by now. But you can probably guess which industry fought that then, and still fights it, fearing a loss in gasoline sales. (By the way, the economy is decarbonizing without direct CO2 regulation due to price elasticity. VMT is now lower than it was in 2007, despite more drivers and more wealth.)

On the safety and air quality side, neither was delivered by the market. Both required regulation. I have good friends at the top of the Air Resources Board and EPA, and I know the vehemence of objections by the manufacturers and fuel companies--and the clear conclusion after successful regulation is that they were wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 19268

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Last edited by isobars on Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 19268

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
why do some posts run on forever to the right so you have
to move the page over and over to read them?

Oversize photos is the primary cause, and the ONLY cause *I* see in this website.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9477

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason for this stretched out page is due to the link that Dan included in his post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2276
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fixed
_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 13029
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You won't read this if Murdoch is washing your brain:

Quote:
Net neutrality won the day in Washington, and that wasn’t supposed to happen. Republicans indignantly opposed regulating Internet service, currently dominated by a few cable giants. Texas Republican Ted Cruz called it “Obamacare for the Internet” (in his world, fightin’ words).

The lobbying money and muscle of Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner no doubt stoked the lawmakers’ passions. And when the Federal Communications Commission voted to prevent Internet service providers from establishing fast lanes for favored customers, its two Republican members voted against it.

So why, when the FCC said the Internet would be treated as a public utility, like telephone lines, did Republicans retreat rather than battle on? The most cited reason was the successful campaign by open-Internet activists working alongside heavy broadband users, notably Netflix, Twitter and Mozilla, proprietor of the Firefox browser.

But there’s another reason. A lot of ordinary Americans hate their cable company. They fume with every month’s astronomically high TV-Internet-phone bundle bill, the product of the company’s monopoly or near-monopoly power.



High-speed Internet is seen no longer as a luxury but as the staff of commercial and personal life. Many Americans know that they are paying vastly more for far slower service than their friends in France, in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. For huge numbers of us, hating the cable company transcends politics.

Faced with these realities, the ideologically motivated voices on the right do what they do so well, avoid them. You have Holman Jenkins in The Wall Street Journal writing that the big tech names — Google, Facebook, Microsoft — didn’t fight against the net neutrality decision “because they didn’t want to be attacked by left-wing groups.”

(Yeah, Google, Facebook and Microsoft are so shy about defending their interests.)

In the real world, these big content providers have been for — not against — net neutrality. In a letter last spring to the FCC, they warned that permitting the Internet service providers to slow traffic for some sites and speed it for others would pose “a grave threat to the Internet.” Did they make themselves clear?

As for the politics, Barbara van Schewick, an Internet expert at Stanford Law School, offers a wildly different analysis of why Google and the others didn’t rush into the fray. She told Wired they “risked drawing the ire of the Republicans in Congress who might retaliate in various ways.”

Elsewhere in the real world, the cable companies don’t seem devastated by the FCC decision. The stocks of Comcast and Time Warner Cable actually rose in its wake. Their proposed merger was being held up by fears of creating a monolith that couldn’t be regulated. Now there are regulations, lowering those fears and making the merger likelier.

Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts have dismissed Republican claims that net neutrality will throttle the cable companies’ investment in infrastructure. After all, the service providers paid $44 billion to buy a new wireless spectrum at a recent FCC auction.

“They wrote that check full knowing that this was coming,” Daniel Ernst, an analyst at Hudson Square Research, said on CNBC.

Google is pro-net neutrality, though it did have some reservations about regulating the Internet like a phone company. That’s because Google’s business interests have spread into broadband. But note that the head of Google Fiber said the impending FCC decision “did not have any specific impact on (Google’s) plans to build more Fiber cities.”

All this solves the mystery of why Republican lawmakers did not bark after the FCC rejected their position. What’s left for the pure ideologues is a bowl of kibbles about the evils of regulation and the selfless good deeds of corporations. That bowl never empties.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 2276
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
Mac said:
Quote:
Rather than respond like an adult to my showing that it was necessary to regulate car manufacturers to achieve safer, higher mileage vehicles


One has to wonder where cars would be today if there hadn't been
any government regulations imposed over the last 50 years. It seems as though cars made pretty good progress before government got involved.
What would consumer demand have generated if the free market system had 100% control? Mac assumes no or little safety and mileage progress
would have been made, and it's only the government's intervention that has saved us from ourselves.

I don't know the answer to this, but in Europe, have the governments regulated vehicle MPG and or safety standards? Or has the price of fuel and consumer demands generated smaller, safer and higher mileage cars
Of course, governments has taxed gas up the wazoo, but has the free
market system generated better and higher mileage cars or was it
government intervention that was responsible? Probably both, but
I haven't done the research.

Another way to look at it is that cars have always been safe, it's the idiot
drivers behind the wheel that are the problem. Since the system allows
idiots behind the wheel, then we have to pad all the walls to protect them
from themselves. A little off the wall? Yes, but not that far from reality.

By the way, why do some posts run on forever to the right so you have
to move the page over and over to read them?


Offering no specific numbers or rates but I think we would find death and injury rates per miles driven dropped considerably after 1966 or 7, whenever DOT was founded, and again in the early 70's when NHTSA finally emancipated funding and control from DOT.

It is the European pedestrian impact standards that drastically changed the design of nearly all cars sold today. Those standards created minimum distances between hood and engine, as well as between bumper cover and the actual structure among other things. Now, the few cars we see with low noses are models without the engine in front. The wide-mouth bass look of Audi, VW et all is due entirely to the Euro pedestrian safety regs. The drag profile of these cars are compromised and nobody really thought consumers would fawn over the look, but they made the best of a very challenging design structure.

Safety was rarely pushed by American manufacturers for its own sake. Market forces often did encourage the Big Three to homologate safety demanded by huge fleet buyers into the general distribution but only two companies, both European, Volvo and Mercedes, really pushed the safety as integral to the design and marketing. It's too bad that Tucker went under, those cars were very aggressive in designing safety into its cars.

On the other hand, Ford had actual knowledge of the Pinto's likelihood to burst its fuel tank when hit from the rear. Ford knew from its own tests that the rear diff bolts would penetrate the fuel tank but neither used an alternative fuel tank design over which Ford held a patent, increased tank thickness, moved the tank from between the bumper and rear axle to in front of the axle or changed the bolts at a cost of $11 per car. Not exactly a sterling example of putting safety as a voluntary priority.

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 6 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group