We are #1

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You don't have to worry, it won't be done. The number of elected officials who think as I do here is probably...zero. My chief dislike is for political video, btw--electronic text can stay unregulated I suppose.

I'm honestly not sure about that. Not only do you have the recently defeated Senate measure, you also have a history for US gov't action and pending legislation that could impact open access to he net. There's particular concern, for example, about the mischief - making that might result from implementing net neutrality. Seems like the first casualty of net neutrality would be video content. Now, I hate pop up video ads as much as the next guy, but the risk that net neutrality might impact political videos / content is a real concern.

Another example - I'm no fan porn distribution, but I was also no fan of the Communications Decency Act.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I've already said forget regulating text. This is text.

Might have some impact on the promiscuous use of YouTube links, though....

Look, I'm not exactly serious here. I'm just wishing I could wave a magic wand and make all campaign video go away. Because it IS awful, and it's cost is what gives candidates a NEED for all that funding, with the corruption of democracy that comes with that.

Just think of it as 'thinkiing outside the box.'

I'd like to see this in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_advertising

In the EU, many countries do not permit paid-for TV or radio advertising for fear that wealthy groups will gain control of airtime making fair play impossible and distort the political debate in the process. In both the United Kingdom and Ireland, paid advertisements are forbidden, though political parties are allowed a small number of party political broadcasts in the run up to election time. The United States has a very free market for broadcast political messaging. Canada allows paid-for political broadcasts but requires equitable access to the airwaves.[1] Campaigns can include several different mediums (depending on local law). The time span over which political campaign advertising is possible varies greatly from country to country, with campaigns in the United States lasting a year or more to places like the UK and Ireland where advertising is restricted by law to just a short period of weeks before the election.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm honestly not sure about that. Not only do you have the recently defeated Senate measure, you also have a history for US gov't action and pending legislation that could impact open access to he net. There's particular concern, for example, about the mischief - making that might result from implementing net neutrality. Seems like the first casualty of net neutrality would be video content. Now, I hate pop up video ads as much as the next guy, but the risk that net neutrality might impact political videos / content is a real concern.

Another example - I'm no fan porn distribution, but I was also no fan of the Communications Decency Act.

Good. Let's move on to net neutrality. You'll need to step me though these bad effects of net neutrality you cite. How would that work? Because net neutrality is what we have now. If we DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING, why would video content 'become a casualty?'

The net neutrality movement is best understood as the 'keep the ISPs from fucking with the net' movement. Why exactly do we want to give Comcast the power to extort more money from Netflix? Won't THAT be what makes video content more expensive or harder to get?

http://consumerist.com/2014/11/13/he...et-neutrality/

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Good. Let's move on to net neutrality. You'll need to step me though these bad effects of net neutrality you cite. How would that work? Because net neutrality is what we have now. If we DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING, why would video content 'become a casualty?'

The net neutrality movement is best understood as the 'keep the ISPs from fucking with the net' movement. Why exactly do we want to give Comcast the power to extort more money from Netflix? Won't THAT be what makes video content more expensive or harder to get?

http://consumerist.com/2014/11/13/he...et-neutrality/

I'm not sure, of course, but I think whell is actually talking about the elimination of net neutrality since that, as you say, is more or less what we have now. In other words, we don't have to "implement" anything to achieve it (though granting the internet "common carrier" status under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act would go a long way toward protecting it).

John

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I'd like to see this in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_advertising

I'd like to see that too, but it's hard to get beyond the wishful-thinking level. It's a big first-amendment issue here, and there is trouble in government regulators deciding what is or isn't a 'paid political advertisement.' Would an ad right now that says 'Jeb Bush is a fink,' and nothing else, be allowed, or not? Not simple to answer.

I'd like to know more about how that sort of question is sorted in Europe.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm not sure, of course, but I think whell is actually talking about the elimination of net neutrality since that, as you say, is more or less what we have now. In other words, we don't have to "implement" anything to achieve it (though granting the internet "common carrier" status under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act would go a long way toward protecting it).

John

How do you claim that we have net neutrality today. To the best of my knowledge, we all pay our ISP's varying amounts for a specific maximum bandwidth. Or am I wrong. I had an interesting run-in with Comcast this week, so my question is real.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm not sure, of course, but I think whell is actually talking about the elimination of net neutrality since that, as you say, is more or less what we have now. In other words, we don't have to "implement" anything to achieve it (though granting the internet "common carrier" status under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act would go a long way toward protecting it).

John

The net is the wild wild west and will remain so as long as our First Amendment is alive and kicking. I think we will be best served if the internet remains an uncommon carrier - keep it away from government regulations to the greatest extent possible.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

How do you claim that we have net neutrality today. To the best of my knowledge, we all pay our ISP's varying amounts for a specific maximum bandwidth. Or am I wrong. I had an interesting run-in with Comcast this week, so my question is real.

Net neutrality has to do with how ISPs conduct business with regard to traffic. If you pay for 30 mps, and a source is available to them at 30 mps*, you should get it that fast. If technical limits force a reduction in speed, it should be across the board.

The ISPs want the ability to discriminate among sources, giving some more speed, and some less. This would allow an ISP like Comcast to maintian speed only for those sources who pay for it, while cash-short competitors are virtually shut-out.


* Note that big content providers must already pay a very high price for fast 'upload speed' to serve jillions of customers.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I'd like to see that too, but it's hard to get beyond the wishful-thinking level. It's a big first-amendment issue here, and there is trouble in government regulators deciding what is or isn't a 'paid political advertisement.' Would an ad right now that says 'Jeb Bush is a fink,' and nothing else, be allowed, or not? Not simple to answer.

I'd like to know more about how that sort of question is sorted in Europe.

Having government restrict access to the public/commercial airwaves is a restriction of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment and would be sending us down an even slippery slope than we are on.

Is speech more restricted in the British Isle than here?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

The net is the wild wild west and will remain so as long as our First Amendment is alive and kicking. I think we will be best served if the internet remains an uncommon carrier - keep it away from government regulations to the greatest extent possible.

The "wild wild west" sucked. If you want to see that on the 'net, wait until the latter day land barons, the ISPs, can do anything they damn well want like blocking certain websites because, for instance, they express political views the ISP owner doesn't like, or charging extra for access to them because they're extremely popular.

And WTF is an "uncommon carrier"? Do you understand this issue at all? Do you know what a common carrier is? Check out Title 2 and stop listening to Comcast's commercials.

I understand that, for all you baggers, deregulation is the universal panacea but it has never worked anywhere that it's been tried.

John