Skip to main content

View Diary: (UPDATE x3)So this is how Net Neutrality dies, under a Democratic President. (762 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'll see your analogy with this one (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban, sweatyb, Argyrios

    Through much of Chicagoland, one has a choice while driving.  Take surface roads for free at 45mph or so.  Or, pay to use the tollway and go 75mph.

    That giant 8 lane tollway wasn't free to build, it isn't free to resurface. That's paid for by the tolls of those who want to use it and drive fast.

    Should we have "road neutrality"?  Should someone who doesn't want to pay the tolls be able to demand that the tollway speed limit be 45mph, same as the free roads?  So that the rich who can afford tolls don't have an unfair advantage getting to work?

    •  That is why all analogies have limits (31+ / 0-)

      In this case, WE THE PEOPLE paid to establish so much of this internet infrastructure these ISPs are now monopolizing.

      Internet in the US basically works as a bunch of regional monopolies- most people only have the choice of 1-3 ISPs at best, with many areas having only one.

      We built the tollway, and now they want to allow only those who can afford the toll through it.

      And don't buy this "it's not fair" bullshit. ISPs charge $60 or more a month for service that costs them, on average, $5-10.

      Average internet speeds in South Korea and Japan are many times faster than ours, and cost far less. The cable companies are in no danger of going under. They make billions.

      The whole bandwidth argument is spread by them because it makes some degree of intuitive sense, as you have proven by buying into it. It's only fair that Netflix pay for access! It is costing us soooo much money! Those poor, poor, Internet Service Cable Company conglomerates.....

      Romney: Believe in (half of) America

      by kmoros on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 01:49:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I'm just used to tollways (3+ / 0-)

        WE THE PEOPLE paid for much of the tollways too.  And when first built, we were told the tolls would be temporary, that they would go away once construction bonds were paid off.  We'd all drive for free!

        Then they didn't get rid of the tolls.  Then they raised them.  Then they raised them again.  And again.  Only those who can afford to toll through it is exactly how it is.

        I don't have the choice of 1-3 tollways.  That's a real monopoly.

    •  cows eating federal grass (0+ / 0-)

      I mean, federal land is "our" land right? So therefore it should be free to use as we like.

      •  Well that gets into the tradition of (3+ / 0-)

        the Rights of the Commons, which was a very progressive idea for perhaps a thousand years.  Anyone in an area was not only free to hunt, gather herbs, acorns, peat and wood from their local commons (uncultivated land) and woods, it was a right.  Many in a village would collaborate on one ox team to cultivate many common acres.

        It allowed the poor to at least sustain themselves.  Then the greedy rich bastards got the government to enclose and privately sell these commons, saying they would be put to better use, and force the "lazy" poor to move into the city and work for pittance wages.  Which was not exactly true.  Yes, the poor had to move into the cities and work for pittance wages, but they also had to be sustained through poor relief.

        Which the new land-owner no longer had to bear.  And he could make his own profit off the exclusive right to grazing and cultivation.  So no wonder the land seemed more profitable once it was enclosed.  

        But it was not.

        And what became true is that the poor had to come up with actual cash in order to survive.  Even moreso today.

        In this country, we do not have much of a tradition of the Commons because there was just so much land around.  We treated anything not owned as Commons - for the white man.  But they didn't want to share.

        But you can still see vestiges of it in hunting rights.

        So be careful that you understand the complete history of a concept before you disagree with it.

        •  you're kidding right? (0+ / 0-)

          Have you not been paying attention to the Bundy thing? Because what he is talking about is the rights of the commons. But it costs the federal government a lot of money to maintain those grazing lands that Bundy thinks are "commons".

          Verizon is the people with the ox team. Netflix is the guy saying, "Oooh! A free ox team! I can use that to plow like 100 fields!"

          That's called the tragedy of the commons.

          And everyone is telling Verizon that not only do they have no right to complain about the overuse of their ox team, but the real problem is that they're not providing enough ox teams for everyone.

    •  That's not the analogy at all. (8+ / 0-)

      You pay the same at the toll booth, but depending on whether you're going to CostCo or Walmart you get a different speed limit.

      Dear Boomers: The dirty Rooskies aren't coming to get you. Breath in sanity through your mouth, breath out the Cold War propaganda through your nose.

      by JesseCW on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 03:33:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (71)
  • Baltimore (67)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Elections (27)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Barack Obama (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site