|
Install Windows posted:Glad to see you admit you didn't know what network neutrality is, as is typical. Throwing around arbitrarily narrow definitions doesn't mean you are actually being persuasive, it just means you're being an rear end in a top hat. Hopefully you realize this.
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Throwing around arbitrarily narrow definitions doesn't mean you are actually being persuasive, it just means you're being an rear end in a top hat. Hopefully you realize this. That's not arbritraily narrow, that's what network neutrality is. It has absolutely nothing to do with price of connections to end users or speed of connections to end users, it has nothing to do with availability of connections to end users.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:That's not arbritraily narrow, that's what network neutrality is. It has absolutely nothing to do with price of connections to end users or speed of connections to end users, it has nothing to do with availability of connections to end users. Sure mate, just the same way that it has nothing to do with the FCC or Time Warner or legal precedents or anything else. Those are all totally different subjects that have nothing to do with network neutrality.  edit: Oh wait nope it's actually possible to talk about a policy proposal and its intended policy effects at the same time.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Sure mate, just the same way that it has nothing to do with the FCC or Time Warner or legal precedents or anything else. Those are all totally different subjects that have nothing to do with network neutrality Comcast and Time Warner merging factually has nothing to do with network neutrality, why do you think this is an argument in your favor? Oh, wait, I know why! Because idiot internet "activists" lazily conflate all sorts of things to create Netghazi, the dread specter of web doom. Network neutrality is an extremely narrow idea, factually and legally. Kaal posted:edit: Oh wait nope it's actually possible to talk about a policy proposal and its intended policy effects at the same time. This still makes nothing about it network neutrality. If you can't understand that you shouldn't try to argue about it. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:51 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Oh now that youre cornered you want to go back to my original proposal? The thing that does not actually exist and does not have a precedent? I literally can't understand what you're saying in this post. I said your original proposal would invoke the takings clause, I backed it up with case law and the only relevant legislative precedent, and now I'm suddenly going back to your original proposal? I never left. It doesn't loving matter if you invoke eminent domain - if its a taking, it's a taking. The entirety of regulatory takings jurisprudence (which, despite your completely inadequate education insisting that takings are only for actual transfers of physical property, is a thing that exists, the same way that non-physical takings are a thing that exists, despite Kaal's idiotic pleas to the contrary) is aimed at things that were explicitly not invocations of the eminent domain power.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Sure mate, just the same way that it has nothing to do with the FCC or Time Warner or legal precedents or anything else. Those are all totally different subjects that have nothing to do with network neutrality. I mean, you can use "network neutrality" to describe a vague idea that everyone ought to have good and cheap Internet connections. And I certainly agree with you that good, cheap Internet connections are something we ought to promote. But that's not what was struck down in the courts, and it's not something the FCC plans to (or even is able to) regulate. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 03:48 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:What if the government, rather than taking the land itself, regulated the use of the land such that the farm still has to operate but it's profits could only be used to (e.g.) run a homeless shelter? In that case, how do you evaluate the appropriate measure of what was taken? You can easily value the profits, since they're dollar-denominated; otherwise the appropriate metric is the change in FMV of the unencumbered business in comparison to the encumbered business, which will generally be far more than one years profit (since no one wants to buy something they can't make a profit from.) Well, that sounds more like Stop the Beach Renourishment's "permanent occupation" which would be a taking of the asset itself rather than the profits if there is a taking at all. Even then, I don't see how this would be a taking. In a sense, it's no different than raising the marginal corporate income tax rate for that industry to 100%. We already have profit caps for insurance with mandated spending of the money above the cap and wage controls have been around a long time. After Yee v. Escondidio I'm not sure how it can be a taking to limit what a business can charge customers or forbid the business to stop serving them.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Pay more attention, I'm not even the one talking about non-physical takings. By the way, your confused little post boils down to "if it's a taking, it's a taking; if it's not a taking, it's not a taking." And that's kind of self-evident and doesn't really support your point. So maybe focus more on the coherency of your argument rather than getting frustrated that people disagree with you. Amarkov posted:I mean, you can use "network neutrality" to describe a vague idea that everyone ought to have good and cheap Internet connections. And I certainly agree with you that good, cheap Internet connections are something we ought to promote. But that's not what was struck down in the courts, and it's not something the FCC plans to (or even is able to) regulate. Why are you talking about courts and regulation? This thread is about net neutrality and goony autism. On the other hand, the FCC itself talks about how improving the quality of the internet (and in specific ways), the differing needs of various stakeholders, and the inherent economic elements are part and parcel of the Net Neutrality/Open Internet concept. So it would appear that perhaps a broader perspective would be warranted. I'm just thinking aloud here though, we can totally play "Gooniest Argument" for a couple rounds if you'd like. The title says that it was struck down by three judges on Jan 14th, so perhaps we should define the legitimate subjects as being only what was said by those three on that date. Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:51 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Pay more attention, I'm not even the one talking about non-physical takings. By the way, your confused little post boils down to "if it's a taking, it's a taking; if it's not a taking, it's not a taking." And that's kind of self-evident and doesn't really support your point. So maybe focus more on the coherency of your argument rather than getting frustrated that people disagree with you.  Dude's a lawyer whose field of expertise is essentially this stuff, he knows what he's talking about and has proved it in court. He's also laid out the case law and precedent pretty handily, so that people like you and I go check up on it. You meanwhile believe "someone else's internet is too slow for my tastes" is a violation of "network neutrality".KernelSlanders posted:Well, that sounds more like Stop the Beach Renourishment's "permanent occupation" which would be a taking of the asset itself rather than the profits if there is a taking at all. That case didn't involve business models per se though, being mostly concerned with whether or not "being directly on the ocean" was an aspect of property rights that was taken away by the state now owning new strips of land.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Dude's a lawyer whose field of expertise is essentially this stuff Hah there's a bizarre appeal to authority. The guy is a patent lawyer talking about federal regulatory and constitutional law. He's taken classes on the topic sure, but he's hardly an expert. And like him, you're coming across as being rather confused about who is saying what, since I haven't talked at all about what violates net neutrality.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Hah there's a bizarre appeal to authority. The guy is a patent lawyer talking about federal regulatory and constitutional law. He's taken classes on the topic sure, but he's hardly an expert. And like him, you're getting confused about who is saying what, since I haven't talked at all about what violates net neutrality. You literally said Comcast mergers were related to network neutrality, which shows you have no idea what net neutrality is, case closed.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:You literally said Comcast mergers were related to network neutrality, which shows you have no idea what net neutrality is, case closed. I literally haven't even used the word Comcast or merger until just now. But yeah, good job there Judge Judy, you win "the case".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well, that sounds more like Stop the Beach Renourishment's "permanent occupation" which would be a taking of the asset itself rather than the profits if there is a taking at all. Even then, I don't see how this would be a taking. In a sense, it's no different than raising the marginal corporate income tax rate for that industry to 100%. We already have profit caps for insurance with mandated spending of the money above the cap and wage controls have been around a long time. After Yee v. Escondidio I'm not sure how it can be a taking to limit what a business can charge customers or forbid the business to stop serving them. Except it isn't a tax. I mean, if you took one thing away from the ACA case, it probably ought to be that what you call things does matter. If you tax at 100% and then spend the tax revenue on infrastructure you've exercised the taxation power and it's all good (I mean, it's stupid in practice, but it's constitutional.) But if you force them to spend everything over that number in the way you want, it's problematic and at least plausibly a taking. And the difference between this and stop the beach is in what's being taken - in stop the beach, it was the potential of the property itself. Here (in Fringe's asinine proposal), there's no taking of the underlying property - it still operates in the exact same way as before with the exact same income stream. What's taken is the profit - that is no longer returned to the owner but instead forced to someone else. To some extent, this is the "slicing" problem that shows up all over takings theories - since you can always slice an asset in such a way as to make it a complete taking of that sliced portion, the whole concept of a complete taking is crap. But this is relatively clean - you take away a property's potential to generate a rent. As I've alluded to several times, that's very much a "distinct investment-backed expectation", which is one key to a regulatory taking claim. More generally, the idea of imposing a cost (via regulation) on a private entity purely for public benefit (as opposed to in reflection of some private cost contributed to the public) is at the core of the older "exaction" based permitting cases in takings jurisprudence. The Takings Clause was designed to prevent the government from forcing one private entity to bear the cost of public improvements without recompense to that entity; a proposal which says broadband companies don't get to make profits is very much of that nature. (Also, technically we don't have profit caps for insurance, we have administrative cost caps. There's a difference, which is quite simple: you can make as much money as you want as long as you're spending 80% of what you take in on care. If the hypo was "just spend 80% on infrastructure" we'd have an ACA situation. Also, it's not like the MLR hasn't been questioned on Fifth Amendment grounds, the industry just felt they were probably better served by keeping it with a guaranteed pool than with fighting to lose customers.) And no, this isn't my expertise (that's IP, FISA/ECPA, and privacy,) just something I studied in a lot of detail during 1L because my property prof felt takings was a great exemplar for a lot of property concepts, and I enjoyed my property course enough to book it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I literally haven't even used the word Comcast or merger until just now. But yeah, good job there Judge Judy, you win "the case". "Sure mate, just the same way that it has nothing to do with the FCC or Time Warner or legal precedents or anything else. Those are all totally different subjects that have nothing to do with network neutrality. " You less than 6 hours ago. The merger was approved, they will be the same entity, the entire reason anybody is even mentioning TWC these days is the merger.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:"Sure mate, just the same way that it has nothing to do with the FCC or Time Warner or legal precedents or anything else. Those are all totally different subjects that have nothing to do with network neutrality. " What is your ideal internet situation? What do you want to see happen? When you argue that somebody doesn't understand net neutrality, what they are usually arguing is their ideal opinion. Somehow, you miss the context of their argument, however. But really, tell us, what is your ideal solution to the internet. What do you think the answer is? I think you believe a lot of the same things we do, but we are arguing different things. Pohl fucked around with this message at 05:01 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Hah there's a bizarre appeal to authority. The guy is a patent lawyer talking about federal regulatory and constitutional law. He's taken classes on the topic sure, but he's hardly an expert. And like him, you're coming across as being rather confused about who is saying what, since I haven't talked at all about what violates net neutrality. Dude, don't lump me in with fishmech's own breed of weirdness. That said, you came in with "You can't seriously believe that the Fifth Amendment would stand in the way of a telco nationalization effort. That's ridiculous." in response to my criticizing FRINGE's insane "they can keep their network but they can't make profits SOFT SOCIALISM!!!" idea. You can't seriously believe that the amendment that bars the taking of private property for public use without payment wouldn't bar nationalizing an industry, can you?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Pohl posted:What is your ideal internet situation? What do you want to see happen? Essentially the status quo, with eventual actual nationalization of infrastructure, but no bullshit pseudo nationalization.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Essentially the status quo, with eventual actual nationalization of infrastructure, but no bullshit pseudo nationalization. What is pseudo nationalization?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Pohl posted:What is pseudo nationalization? The poo poo FRINGE posted about setting arbitrary limits but still allowing the providers to operate as private for profit entities for stockholders.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The poo poo FRINGE posted about setting arbitrary limits but still allowing the providers to operate as private for profit entities for stockholders. So, complete nationalization and government control is what you want? I'm trying to parse your messages, if I'm wrong, be more clear.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Pohl posted:So, complete nationalization and government control is what you want? Yes, eventually. There is no place for leaving it as multiple for-profit entities with tightly controlled profit/price/whatever margins on them. In particular, it would take quite some legislative doing to get a government entity the ability to set those controls on ISPs, and there would likely be little difference between the politicians you could get to support that, and the politicians you could get to support straight nationalization. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 05:11 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Yes, eventually. There is no place for leaving it as multiple for-profit entities with tightly controlled profit/price/whatever margins on them. Ok, thank you. So what we are arguing in this thread is process and procedure, not outcome. Right? I want you to correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Ok, thank you. So what we are arguing in this thread is process and procedure, not outcome. Right? I want you to correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, pretty much.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Yes, pretty much. So before I said that we could do this poo poo now, if we wanted to... but I included price and access. That hosed up my messaging. I stand behind what I said however, because even in the context of net neutrality, if the FCC and Congress wanted to institute net neutrality, they could do it tomorrow. Edit: I just saw your edit. It seems we completely agree. Pohl fucked around with this message at 05:21 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
edit is not post
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Pohl posted:So before I said that we could do this poo poo now, if we wanted to... but I included price and access. That hosed up my messaging. I stand behind what I said however, because even in the context of net neutrality, if the FCC and Congress wanted to institute net neutrality, they could do it tomorrow. The thing is we have net neutrality, we've had it for well over 2 decades, and it's never been in any serious danger of going away. Fully legit things like getting other big companies to pay for direct access once transit providers start buckling under the load provide the same kinds of profits that straight up paying for faster access over existing links could, but with additional amounts of reliability and bandwidth that actually make the deal advantageous to the non-ISP party. Additionally, the largest ISP in the country, Comcast, already has to obey explicit neutrality rules for the next decade as part of the NBCUniversal purchase's approval process. And we're in the process of the FCC properly rewriting their planned net neutrality rules to unambiguously enforceable. This is all despite what the Netghazi Crew will yell about with regards to it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ypi51FuNs http://www.dailydot.com/politics/us-broadband-speed-cost-infographic/ quote:...
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ypi51FuNs So we aren't actually far behind then? On a per megabit basis the countries beating America are either small, densely populated areas that can easily build an infrastructure (like Korea) and countries biased by the fact that nobody is online (like Russia).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:So we aren't actually far behind then? On a per megabit basis the countries beating America are either small, densely populated areas that can easily build an infrastructure (like Korea) and countries biased by the fact that nobody is online (like Russia). AT&T rakes in $5.2 billion Q4 profit http://bgr.com/2014/01/28/att-earnings-q4-2013/ Verizon’s earnings ... The carrier’s net income totaled $5.07 billion in the fourth quarter. http://bgr.com/2014/01/21/verizon-earnings-q4-2013/ Comcast’s total revenue grew 7% to $16.3 billion and cash flow was up 8.4% to $5.4 billion. http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2013/07/31/comcasts-nbcu-deal-looks-smart-after-big-revenue-gain/ People make excuses because "<3 the market <3" and other bullshit, but the story doesnt change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:So we aren't actually far behind then? On a per megabit basis the countries beating America are either small, densely populated areas that can easily build an infrastructure (like Korea) and countries biased by the fact that nobody is online (like Russia). This is correct. This doesn't stop FRINGE from acting like the sky is falling every few weeks though. FRINGE posted:We should be frontrunners, but the mountains of money that move into the ISPs are disappearing in the predictable way. For example, here we can see FRINGE pointing out that "corporations make money!!!" as if it says anything. The ISPs in other countries whose knobs he's polishing in his previous posts also make billions. He's also pretending America isn't among the frontrunners because he just plain hates capitalism but only in America for some reason. A stupid person would see "American internet is slightly more expensive for the whole country than other countries that by all facts of technology should be less expensive than it" and "some american isps make money" and then build some kind of idiotic narrative that anything matters about those two things. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Wonder how much of those profits are due to non-wireline services like cable TV and wireless phones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Its the hero of the beleaguered corporate America Fishmech to defend bad behavior again! Making "some money" is billions per quarter while trying to reduce access and increase prices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Wonder how much of those profits are due to non-wireline services like cable TV and wireless phones. Tons. Cable TV's one of the biggest scams in corporate America, as standard methods of providing it require minimal ongoing costs, and the costs of carrying channels which charge for carriage are wholly borne by the consumer - not to mention the channels out there that pay the cable companies to be carried. Mobile phone companies have similar sources of profit to hand, like how all the major carriers will eagerly sell customers on various things they simply don't need. And of course Comcast owns one of the major movie studios and one of the major TV networks now, and both of them are wildly profitable. It'd be hard for them to not make a ton of money. FRINGE posted:Its the hero of the beleaguered corporate America Fishmech to defend bad behavior again! Your definition of "bad behavior" seems to be "they behave just like other global ISPs but in AMERICA!" so basically you have 0 credibility. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Jon Oliver just did a piece on this over the weekend. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU Don't think he said anything that hasn't already been said here, only he's British and makes a nut-kick joke. But he was super thorough for an audience that I suspect doesn't keep up with this as much as Goons do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:Jon Oliver just did a piece on this over the weekend. Oh so there is an issue then? Weird. The Corporate White Knights of Asslicking keep saying that there is Nothing To See Here™. I think I heard that name "Tom Wheeler" somewhere before..?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
That was quick. http://bgr.com/2014/06/03/john-oliver-net-neutrality-comments-appeal/ quote:John Oliver’s successful net neutrality appeal broke the FCC
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:That was quick. People posted comments on a website, truly this means... what exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:People posted comments on a website, truly this means... what exactly? Truly it means the will of the people is being heard, just like #NotAllMen on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Truly it means the will of the people is being heard, just like #NotAllMen on Twitter. It means a summer law clerk is going to get incredibly frustrated/bored reading through a bunch of troll comments because the FCC is legally required to read them all and respond to any legitimate concerns they raise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Kalman posted:It means a summer law clerk is going to get incredibly frustrated/bored reading through a bunch of troll comments because the FCC is legally required to read them all and respond to any legitimate concerns they raise. Seeing how most of the ones I've read are demanding they go the common carrier route...well, I feel bad for the clerk, but seriously, this is literally what people are supposed to do. The FCC is legally obligated to solicit public comments, so unlike some poo poo on twitter, it's actually being directed to the correct people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 08:16
|
|