My business is commercial/enterprise IT services but that's irrelevant to the real issue which is government interference in free markets.

Government should not tell private business what they can and do with their network infrastructure they built. If a business chooses to filter or throttle network activity on their network for whatever reason let consumer demand dictate if they will continue to stay in business.

I prefer to remove government barriers so there are more broadband choice and more ISP's to choose from.

Net Neutrality like a lot of government regulations keeps the barriers to enter a market high that only large business can afford and often legislate for to keep their dominance.

Couple Notes:
The free market is not supposed to protect you from being hurt by any one. It's gives you the opportunity to take your business elsewhere.

I'm pretty sure I can live without internet for 3 days. Water... not so much.

You are proving my point. Your arguments have very little if anything to really do with the Internet as much as they do government regulation. Am I correct?

Yes and no.  It has alot to do about regulation yes, but the core concept is still how the internet works/will function with/without the regulation.  If you don't understand how the internet works all this "regulation" talk sounds much worse. 

My business is commercial/enterprise IT services but that's irrelevant to the real issue which is government interference in free markets.

Government should not tell private business what they can and do with their network infrastructure they built. If a business chooses to filter or throttle network activity on their network for whatever reason let consumer demand dictate if they will continue to stay in business.

I prefer to remove government barriers so there are more broadband choice and more ISP's to choose from.

Net Neutrality like a lot of government regulations keeps the barriers to enter a market high that only large business can afford and often legislate for to keep their dominance.

Couple Notes:
The free market is not supposed to protect you from being hurt by any one. It's gives you the opportunity to take your business elsewhere.

I'm pretty sure I can live without internet for 3 days. Water... not so much.

Problem is this.  Say you want no regulation.  How is any business supposed to complete with the giants?  Can you afford to wire Oahu to set up your own isp?  Can you then afford to complete?  Now lets took at it from another way.  Say we did the same thing to the water company and there was an abundance of money for some reason.  We have 10 water companies all running water lines everywhere.  There will be alot of issues just on this alone.  Now all 10 companies seek profit only and some dude lives in Waianae, why bother sending water to this customer when it will cost more to run the pipes than you will make off of him in a 100 years.  And if someone did run the line not all 10 will so the guy will be forced to buy from 1 company who can go and charge any rate they feel like. 
The freemarket works amazing but it should be focused on the non essentials.  We don't have freemarket police, fire, IRS, defense, etc for a reason.

As for "Net Neutrality like a lot of government regulations keeps the barriers to enter a market high that only large business can afford and often legislate for to keep their dominance."  This is utterly false.   There is no small business that can afford to set up a meaningful network in any location.  Having ISP's classified as Title 2 has no direct effect on creating a ISP and where they can lay lines.  Net neutrality more more focused on what they can and cannot do with the data they handle.

There are many ways to fund a business that wants to do isp services. (Venture capitalist, investors, etc.)  And there are other means besides wiring the island.

There are small businesses that can and try even here in Hawaii that are small businesses such as ServPac and Pacific Wavecome, or Systemmetrics before they were bought by Hawaiian Telcom. Or even large businesses like Google Fiber to allow them to compete without a regulatory handicap. But that's besides the point.

It's not the governments job to make sure a small business can become an ISP but they should make sure they are not in the way.

It comes down to a difference in ideology. With with water, fire, etc. I'd rather trust a model that truly puts the power in the hands of the consumer rather than the bureaucrat.

I know what title 2 does. An isp should be free to prioritize or slow down data from any type of network traffic it chooses. Consumers are a powerful force if the government stays out of it's way.

And there you have it folks. Ban the internet and everyone do this stuff face to face over a couple of beers or use "charley whiskey" (can can still send @ 40 WPM, 45 WPM and an old Remington Rand typewriter). Only thing that will be useable after nuke since EMP will fry anything else.......

As much as I enjoy the Internet I plan and make time in my life where the Internet has no place. Besides work, the Internet is really only important to me to stay in touch with my family on the mainland. Before the Internet I still had phone calls and mailed letters with photos included. I could go back to that with no problems.

Yes and no.  It has alot to do about regulation yes, but the core concept is still how the internet works/will function with/without the regulation.  If you don't understand how the internet works all this "regulation" talk sounds much worse.

So far the only arguments for government regulation you have provided have nothing to do with the Internet specifically. So I can understand how this argument is tied into your job in IT (as you said) please provide a pro government regulation argument that is tied specifically to your position in IT. I am really interested how they are tied together. Just saying it is, is you just flapping your gums. So please give me a real world example.

So far the only arguments for government regulation you have provided have nothing to do with the Internet specifically. So I can understand how this argument is tied into your job in IT (as you said) please provide a pro government regulation argument that is tied specifically to your position in IT. I am really interested how they are tied together. Just saying it is, is you just flapping your gums. So please give me a real world example.

remember, he cares so little about discussing these things with us, he does not take the time to come up with a clear argument (or spell correctly)

Problem is this.  Say you want no regulation.  How is any business supposed to complete with the giants?  Can you afford to wire Oahu to set up your own isp?  Can you then afford to complete?

For MACSAK: "...complete with the giants", "...afford to complete" 

The problem with your example here is that none of it is true. Let me explain. Back in the early days of Internet access a little thing called DSL was invented so the old telephone wires going into your house could be used to supply high speed internet access. And that is exactly what the phone companies did. Except for one thing, there was no competition when the phone company owns the wires and the connection to your wires into your house. So pressure from the market due to the high prices forced the government to pass a law requiring any small ISP to not only be able to use the wires going into your house but the phone companies were forced to supply room and electricity (at a wholesale cost of course) in their exchanges to any little ISP that wanted to sell DSL services to the phone company's customers. This is called LLU (Local Loop Unbundling). Your phone service is still provided by the phone company and the last mile is serviced by the phone company but your internet can be provided by an independent ISP. While we don't have dense enough population in Honolulu to make that a reality here, it is quite common on the mainland where dense populations make it profitable and a viable choice.

Actually, running new wires/fiber and building out a network is not as expensive as you might think. The real cost is in the leasing of running the wires/fiber on poles and underground conduits. The local governments and their utilities charge huge rents/leases for this space. Therefore it is the local governments and utilities that cause a lack of competition. Which keeps the prices higher from outside competition. This is exactly the same as government regulation.

I worked on several products during my time in the IT world. One product I worked on was developing/testing DSL hardware while working at Cisco Systems. I supplied Level III worldwide support for the hardware as well. I also worked integrally with the sales force as the technical expert developing presentations for use to sell to startup ISPs. You might think you know a lot because you are in the IT world but your statement once again shows you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

So far the only arguments for government regulation you have provided have nothing to do with the Internet specifically. So I can understand how this argument is tied into your job in IT (as you said) please provide a pro government regulation argument that is tied specifically to your position in IT. I am really interested how they are tied together. Just saying it is, is you just flapping your gums. So please give me a real world example.

Here's a quick simple one, I work in healthcare,  HIPPA is a major government regulation that I deal with daily.  So i know how regulations can affect stuff.  I still view HIPPA as a net positive even with all the hassles, because in the end its for the customers safety.

gofccyourself.com

Hehe...   

Here's a quick simple one, I work in healthcare,  HIPPA is a major government regulation that I deal with daily.  So i know how regulations can affect stuff.  I still view HIPPA as a net positive even with all the hassles, because in the end its for the customers safety.

That's like saying I'm a police officer so I know the laws.

That's like saying I'm a police officer so I know the laws.

Exactly. He still just flapping his gums.

Here's a quick simple one, I work in healthcare,  HIPPA is a major government regulation that I deal with daily.  So i know how regulations can affect stuff.  I still view HIPPA as a net positive even with all the hassles, because in the end its for the customers safety.

Apples and oranges.

HIPAA controls your data storage and access procedures and rules because of the nature of the information you collect, use and store.  There are industry standards that you must implement to keep that data from being disclosed to any not allowed to have it.  That includes backups, encryption at rest, positive identification of anyone with system access, exposure of that amount of information necessary for each department to do their jobs, and notification of customers in case of a breach.

Net neutrality is an attempt to regulate a conduit for information.  The nature of the information being transmitted is not part of the decision-making process.

However, there are segments who use more than a fair share of bandwidth and speed -- like Netflix.  I saw a report years ago that Netflix accounted for 60% of the bandwidth usage in the US that year.  It's probably much more now, and I'm sure capacity and speed have increased at least as much. 

ISPs have a tough balance to maintain.  How can they predict demand, support that demand, and charge enough to keep the shareholders happy, the techs employed, and the data streaming at full speed?

Government now wants to DEMAND that ISPs provide everyone the exact same level of service regardless of their actual Internet usage.  It's going to  force providers to return to the old data plans (similar to cell phone plans) where you are allowed a limit based on the plan you pay for.  If you go over, you pay more for that usage. 

Government never makes things better.  They make things more expensive which by default gives industry the funds to make things better.  You get what you pay for.

Of course, not everyone pays/will pay more for Internet connectivity.  They piggyback off commercial and residential WiFi systems.  Higher prices will drive more users to do that if they can.

Here's a quick simple one, I work in healthcare,  HIPPA is a major government regulation that I deal with daily.  So i know how regulations can affect stuff.  I still view HIPPA as a net positive even with all the hassles, because in the end its for the customers safety.

When are you going to make that pro government regulation argument that is tied to IT like I asked you to do? I am still waiting for it..... 

Here's a quick simple one, I work in healthcare,  HIPPA is a major government regulation that I deal with daily.  So i know how regulations can affect stuff.  I still view HIPPA as a net positive even with all the hassles, because in the end its for the customers safety.

It's HIPAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's HIPAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jeez, dusty, let it go
he admits he's not good at spelling
LOL
 

It's HIPAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's bad form to correct someone who knows "how regulations can affect stuff."

He's obviously a professional and is more knowledgeable than "the common man.".

          

Unfortunately, Omni is no longer omnipresent here. The naive don't understand how net neutrality really works. They just repeat the talking points of the mindless. Here is an excellent article explaining why net neutrality is bad for those of us who believe in freedom of choice:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian?utm_source=shapironewsletter-ae&utm_medium=email&utm_content=112817-news&utm_campaign=modelnames

Government usually screws things up more than it helps in most instances.  Seems like a power grab and taxation.  Sometimes it does the opposite of it's good intentions by reducing competition.  Internet seemed to be doing fine on it's own previously.

Pres Trumps biggest, yet underrated, accomplishment is he reduced a lot of government regulations already.

Mulvaney is already shit-canning the Consumer Bureau so why not net neutrality. Draining the swamp in action...