Why the FCC will probably ignore the public on network neutrality

[Techhog]

Isn't that the point, for all countries to merge and to operate on a planetary level one day? You can google 3 types of civilization for that theory.

While most likely true, there is no real reason to paint communism as something evil and bad as it is done to this day which is why I started this conversation.

Well, I do not expect for that sort of system to become popular anytime soon if at all but one can hope which does not mean that I won't research other real possibilities.

The point of all this is that corporations in USA have been given too much power and they abuse it because there is no one bigger to stop them. System isn't functioning for the working class and it needs to change. It doesn't have to be some revolutionary grand change, just putting a stop on legal bribes to government parties.

I don't think that it's evil. It's just that the conditions required for it to be "utopian" is for the world to become utopia. It's fundamentally flawed. In a world without greed or selfishness, what system can't work? Seriously, study what perfect capitalism is. That theory also works out in a way which makes everyone happy. That's why it'll never work.

[cubercaleb]

America is run by morons who are elected into power by morons and take money from giant corporations because they are greedy and selfish. I'm not surprised by this at all.

[KungPaoChino]

These corporations aren't like tents.  They can't just go ahead and move, though they have other means of getting what they want.

 

The article is very pessimistic.  I wouldn't get my hopes up, but I would have hope nonetheless that "fast" lanes don't become a thing.  Rest assured, public opinion is NOT like this:

 

Not using enough duct tape

[mikeeginger]

I hope not 

If they do I fear it would become a standard 

to have "fast Lanes" in other countries eg the UK
 

[Techhog]

Out of curiosity, what are the worst possible results from having fast lanes?

[ZombieMan762]

Out of curiosity, what are the worst possible results from having fast lanes?

 

 

They can 'nudge' you into using a particular service. Like if you want to use Netflix but it buffers all the time, and has a low resolution. But for $14.99 you can use the ISP's streaming service which runs at 1080p 60fps with little to no buffering. 

 

 

Just imagine a bunch of websites or services suddenly running slow as shit while the ISP's or big boys who pay them run really fast. 

 

 

I don't want my ISP involved in my internet use beyond providing a standard level of service I pay for. They've figured out they can manipulate their infrastructure to create circumstances that allow them to monetize traffic beyond a flat monthly fee, and double dipping. They won't provide the level of service we're paying for unless the site I'm going to also becomes a paying subscriber to their network. Pretty crappy. 

[javelance]

http://www.amazon.com/Truper-30323-Fiberglass-10-Inch-50-Inch/dp/B005Q7CRNU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1412779082&sr=8-2&keywords=pitchforks

Get 'em while there hot.

[Techhog]

They can 'nudge' you into using a particular service. Like if you want to use Netflix but it buffers all the time, and has a low resolution. But for $14.99 you can use the ISP's streaming service which runs at 1080p 60fps with little to no buffering. 

 

 

Just imagine a bunch of websites or services suddenly running slow as shit while the ISP's or big boys who pay them run really fast. 

 

 

I don't want my ISP involved in my internet use beyond providing a standard level of service I pay for. They've figured out they can manipulate their infrastructure to create circumstances that allow them to monetize traffic beyond a flat monthly fee, and double dipping. They won't provide the level of service we're paying for unless the site I'm going to also becomes a paying subscriber to their network. Pretty crappy. 

I see. Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't think my ISP would do that, but the other major ones...

[Misanthrope]

Absolutely right, there will always be the haves and the have nots. Why bother to succeed in your profession when everything is shared?

You're thinking about it from a Capitalist paradigm: We attribute value mostly in the form of posessions and wealth. This is not universal however, it's just a consequence of the capitalist system devaluing the work of the individual. You can easily see how many persons devote themselves to other professions like being Firefighters, social workers, etc. That have little to no financial success yet this is done out of personal edification and it can drive a person just as much as the desire to earn material goods, if not more so.

I understand that you can't phantom a world where money doesn't matter and success is not measured in how much you can get for your efforts but Marx predicted that this would be the case not because of human nature, but because the overall capitalist society imposing it's structure on the social and personal aspects of life. He wrote a lot about the philosophical side of things not just economy.

[ZombieMan762]

You're thinking about it from a Capitalist paradigm: We attribute value mostly in the form of posessions and wealth. This is not universal however, it's just a consequence of the capitalist system devaluing the work of the individual. You can easily see how many persons devote themselves to other professions like being Firefighters, social workers, etc. That have little to no financial success yet this is done out of personal edification and it can drive a person just as much as the desire to earn material goods, if not more so.

I understand that you can't phantom a world where money doesn't matter and success is not measured in how much you can get for your efforts but Marx predicted that this would be the case not because of human nature, but because the overall capitalist society imposing it's structure on the social and personal aspects of life. He wrote a lot about the philosophical side of things not just economy.

 

 

Public employee pensions tend to be quite a bit of money. And public employees have long given up higher pay for job security, benefits, and retirement. 

 

Whats wrong with working for a desire to earn money? Why is that a bad thing? Not everyone just wants to amass wealth but they can use that wealth to improve their standard of living, ect. In communism everyone is reduced to a lowest common denominator, and thus removes people's motivation. Capitalism is used for far more good things than communism has ever produced, and of course people just say true communism has never occurred. Thats because the utopian communism people think about is impossible, and the implementation we get results in a lot of death, mass poverty, and decades of people living under central planners that live plush lifestyles. Thats communism in the real world not someone's imagination. 

 

Money, and wealth have been around since the earliest of civilizations. Thats not going away anytime soon. Instead of wasting your time and energy lusting after some impossible societal structure people should look for ways to make the real world we actually live in a better place. 

[pixeldensity]

can someone remind me again how Tom Wheeler is the chairman of the FCC?

[Misanthrope]

You're assuming that the lowest common denominator is bad. It isn't since all health care, all education, etc. Is covered universally. Your assumptions continue here also because you assume only material goods have intrinsic value, this is caused because of the disconnection between the worker and the product of his work cause he does not own the means of production and gets no direct benefit from the result or product. This, as Marx mentions, is a direct result of capitalism.

I'll elaborate later.

[Techhog]

You're thinking about it from a Capitalist paradigm: We attribute value mostly in the form of posessions and wealth. This is not universal however, it's just a consequence of the capitalist system devaluing the work of the individual. You can easily see how many persons devote themselves to other professions like being Firefighters, social workers, etc. That have little to no financial success yet this is done out of personal edification and it can drive a person just as much as the desire to earn material goods, if not more so.

I understand that you can't phantom a world where money doesn't matter and success is not measured in how much you can get for your efforts but Marx predicted that this would be the case not because of human nature, but because the overall capitalist society imposing it's structure on the social and personal aspects of life. He wrote a lot about the philosophical side of things not just economy.

If it weren't human nature, these wouldn't have existed in the first place. There was never a time when people wanted to work for nothing, unless you're assuming aliens invented capitalism and the concept of success. Face it, it would require a revolution in human nature, thinking, and values to bring about a "communist utopia," which makes it irrelevant because any system can be flawless if human nature becomes flawless.

 

The biggest issue is that, in order for communism to work, anarchy has to be in place. This requires EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET to decide that they don't want power. If one person ever comes to power, it falls apart. It's a foolish dream, just like a perfect free market is a foolish dream. Neither will ever happen.