Splitting up the same posting into two separate quotes…
I figured it was worth a try - I might get a straight answer, rather than your continued diversion. Somehow, I’m not surprised.
Prevented the spread of abuses that were beginning even in those earlier days.
From here. Which I suppose you’ve seen, and ignored, before.
Also note that even fewer companies are offering broadband now, allowing even one malefactor to affect more people, who will have little or no recourse.
So, D’anconia, I’ve answered your question. Will you answer mine, or continue to evade?
Beats Freemasons.
Secondary source re: a Pew Research study.
So then why did you even introduce this stupid distinction into the argument in the first place?
Employment, educational, and medical access have already been mentioned in this thread as being increasingly dependent upon ready internet access.
But do tell us - by your standards, what set of desires for a purported average American in 2017 fall under the category of “needs” and what set under “wants”? Be specific.
Needs:
Bread
Brondo
Fox News
Tax cuts
Wants:
Clean water
Health care
Education beyond the 5th grade
Voting rights
I object! I object to Brondo bein’ a need, cuz it’s what plants crave! Tha’s totally different so I object! Yeah!
I want to poke my head in and agree with the poster above that I would be fine with no net neutrality rules if the ISPs monopolies/duopolies were broken up. Back in the stone ages, when people had land lines, the phone companies were forced to allow anyone to use their network for long distance calls. That led to some real competition, with MCI, Sprint, and others becoming competitors to AT&T and the Baby Bells. So, if I could pick and choose my ISP, while keeping my FIOS connection, I’d probably be fine with removing net neutrality. I’d try and choose an ISP that has no interest in throttling and blocking since they have no competing business to YouTube, Netflix, or the news networks.
And, to the question above about whether an internet connection is a need or a want, all I know is that my kids have had to get their homework and submit it online for years. I honestly don’t know what kids do without a connection – my guess is that everyone with kids in my town has a connection. Otherwise, the library is available, but that would require a fair amount of advance planning (they have tons of homework) or using a friend’s connection, I guess.
Really? I used to be in the industry, my families business responsible for delivering 10% of the telephone directories published in the US, about 50 million directories (out of 500m).
Nowadays, the directory print market is about 20% of the size when our business was at its peak (2006). Most of them are printed for the rural market and are printed by one of three publishers:
Hibu, AKA “Yellow Book USA”. Even though they remain one of the three largest publishers in the US, one can’t even tell this from their website: www.hibu.com
Names & Numbers. Rumor has it they will cease their directory operations within 3 years. This year alone they cut their production schedule by up to 30%.
Dex Media, AKA “Idearc”, AKA “Supermedia”. 6 bankruptcies in 9 years will do that to a name. Currently the largest publisher of print directories, they bought the entire portfolio of ATT-branded books in 2016… and promptly closed 30% of them. I know the CEO, Joe Walsh, a bit and Joe (who used to be CEO of Yellow Book, see above) loves, loves, loves to use debt to build empires.
… and that’s it. There will be smaller publishers, I think Frontier Communications has a directory division, there is Valley Publishers in CA, but the market is, essentially, dead for large and medium-sized cities. The PSC’s of the various States no longer require directories to be published, which also exerted downward pressures on the market.
Anyway… my point of all this is simple: Cite? Please, take a picture of the book you received “literally yesterday” and send it to me via PM. Because I know there aren’t that many books being physically delivered in December any more via D2D delivery and I’m curious as to who it can be. Dex has their Southern Illinois books, Valley delivers some titles in December, and N&N has 2 books being delivered in MO right now.
As an industry expert (though no longer in the industry, Thank God), I am curious. And doubtful.
I would say not even then, because for one thing even in an imaginary competitive ISP environment, there are upstream bandwidth providers where abuses can happen that the ISPs themselves have no control over. A typical traceroute shows the packet transiting at least a handful of different networks, all of them with the potential for altering their behavior based on header or deep-packet inspection. And for another thing, where there are a limited number of competitive choices collusion among them is almost inevitable, and as I showed in post #31 it’s already been happening – and there are lots of other examples.
But most importantly, in the real world the prevalence of broadband Internet has tended to inextricably tie the ISP to the infrastructure operators, whether they are one and the same or whether they’re resellers who nevertheless rely on the same network and may therefore be subject to the same abuses. In the old days of dialup, anyone and his dog could become an ISP just by buying a rack of modems and leasing a T1 line, and the market was flooded by a multitude of small operators.
As someone already pointed out, the UN declared access to the Internet to be a fundamental human right. Individual countries have done the same. In Canada, for instance, the communications regulatory body, the CRTC, declared the Internet an essential service. This had a couple of important implications. One, it put regulation of the Internet on the same footing as the regulation of other common carriers, essentially enshrining the principles of net neutrality. Two, it formed the basis for policies to expand broadband services to remote and rural areas where the much-vaunted free market would never do it because it wouldn’t be profitable. To that end, the federal government is providing funding and requiring broadband ISPs to contribute to a common funding pool.
Of course the right-wingers here would be adamantly against any of those things. But the reality is that ISPs are common carriers providing an essential public communications service and must be treated that way.
Because what you are saying is not right in a meaningful way. Madison River was blocking the specific ports that were being used for VOIP.
A port is not a physical thing. It is an abstract concept, kind of like a routing number. One computer tags the data it sends with a port number, and the other computer that receives the data uses the port number to figure out what process should handle the packet. VOIP may use ports in the 1700s range and in the 5000s range. http (websites) use ports 80, 8008 or 8080.
So the fact that you can use the Vonage website is no indication that you can use the service they offer. Which means that your correctness on this niggling point is absolutely worthless.
I’m really curious to know how that works in the second decade of the 21st century.
Was it dropped off by a guy with a horse and cart?
Different time zone. Roughly, 1958.
It was very likely:
For awhile the internet was an interesting outlet for dissident views you wouldn’t find in corporate media, but it wasn’t realistic to expect them not to come after it eventually. They tried under Obama and failed, but they’re persistent buggers. The craziest part was how they openly mocked the populace with that dumb meme video.
Tired: Using anti-trust laws to break up monopolies
Wired: Nationalizing Google
You’ve been around the block, how could you actually think Dems would fix any of this? Or would even want to.
Well, here’s your thought on the internet…streaming movies
That’s like saying, cars are not a necessities in modern life, by saying that driving to the cinema is not as important as water and heat :smack:
Without the internet, I can NOT do my work - so it’s pretty much essential to me.
However you actually seem think, that the internet is only for streaming movies, which is what some people do, but it’s by far not the main aspect of the internet usage.
There are way more things that the internet is used for, here’s a list of just a few things you can do on or with the internet:
Can all these thing be done in some shape or form without the internet?
Sure, but by that thinking, we don’t “need” cars, electricity, planes, clothes & houses.
But I don’t like to sleep in caves and hunt for my next meal.
Just Google the answer - Ups! Sorry, Google is blocked with your ISP, since they have their own search engine, they want you to use :eek:
Dude, you do realize that Net Neutrality wasn’t enacted 2 and half years ago, right?
This is a right wing talking point I’ve seen over and over again, and it’s fucking laughable, because it’s so blatantly incorrect, as has been pointed out over and over again in this thread and many other places.
Bottom line, it doesn’t matter for people like D’Anconia or Bricker if customers have worse service that costs more. The free market process is the important part, not the result. If the free market results in a monopoly that charges outrageous prices for shitty service it doesn’t matter.
It’s because they figure the monopoly won’t affect them. They can afford to pay a little more, and it won’t be views they agree with that’ll be subject to executive censorship, so why should they care?
Bingo…Free market fundamentalism is a religion. It is not based on any science, evidence, or logic. Free markets are by definition better and if there is any problem with the market, it is really simply because it is not free enough.