PDA

View Full Version : FCC Approves Confusing Net Neutrality


Cbr1000Rider
12-21-2010, 11:09 AM
Well it is here.. we know what we want but did we really get it? It seems there are loopholes in this that makes it favorable for companies like Comcast or ATT... I don't look at today as a victory until I hear a statement from Google about it.

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT "NET NEUTRALITY" MEANS... PLEASE READ HERE..

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/steve-wozniak-to-the-fcc-keep-the-internet-free/68294/

THEN READ THE FOLLOWING STORIES HERE...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html?hpt=T2

Mute
12-21-2010, 11:47 AM
Net neutrality is stupid because the only way to implement it is through the government. Give anything over to a bunch of power-tripping bureaucrats and you're bound to see nothing but FUBAR. When are people going to learn?

POLICESTATE
12-21-2010, 12:09 PM
The problems that will spawn as a result of government meddling with the internet will never be noticed or discussed on the internet. That's kind of the point :rolleyes:

atto
12-21-2010, 12:22 PM
I think it's a step in the right direction. It's better to prevent damage than to fix it after the fact.

To those confused:

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.

Basically telecom companies have thought about slowing down or preventing access to websites/service that are competitors (Hulu for TV, Skype for phone calls, etc.). This prevents it from happening.

Cbr1000Rider
12-21-2010, 12:31 PM
The problems that will spawn as a result of government meddling with the internet will never be noticed or discussed on the internet. That's kind of the point :rolleyes:

I don't think you understand what net neutrality means.

Net neutrality in a nut shell is basically a concept that states "You can't fu*k with the internet"... That means ISP's can't throttle your internet connection for downloading more than your neighbor.. even though you both pay for the same unlimited internet plan. Comcast has throttled internet for years. It also means ISP's can't charge businesses like Netflix a fee for streaming movies to users... while not charging other websites fees... this is ALSO something Comcast has done.

Although.. the "net neutrality" that was passed today is driving criticism due to loopholes... that actually help dominant company's like Comcast. That is not good for you nor I.. the consumer.

bigmike82
12-21-2010, 12:36 PM
The concept of net neutrality grew the internet into what it is today. Though I'm generally against government meddling, in the case of NN, it's absolutely necessary.

Cbr1000Rider
12-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Comcast has been caught throttling before.. I have been throttled and it truely makes your blood boil.. especially when you call Comcast and ask if they have reinstated throttling and they laugh and say "yes, we have".

If the FCC passed a TRUE "net neutrality" policy today, then good for them. People such as I, the consumer will benefit.

If the FCC passed a net neutrality policy that is riddled with loopholes.. we may be doomed.

Mute
12-21-2010, 12:53 PM
That's the problem. I don't see TRUE net neutrality happening any time soon.

bigmike82
12-21-2010, 12:59 PM
Anything in the right direction is worthwhile. Consumer outrage is all well and good, but sometimes it takes the heavy boot of the government to force the corps to play by the rules. I don't like it when it happens, but sometimes, that's the only thing that'll work.

Cbr1000Rider
12-21-2010, 1:00 PM
That's the problem. I don't see TRUE net neutrality happening any time soon.

This is why I await a comment from Google regarding the latest update. They are for true net neutrality... anything that has to do with net neutrality directly affects their business and they are pretty quick to be in the loop.

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality

POLICESTATE
12-21-2010, 1:13 PM
I understand what NN is, however I don't believe the FCC does.

I don't think you understand what net neutrality means.

Net neutrality in a nut shell is basically a concept that states "You can't fu*k with the internet"... That means ISP's can't throttle your internet connection for downloading more than your neighbor.. even though you both pay for the same unlimited internet plan. Comcast has throttled internet for years. It also means ISP's can't charge businesses like Netflix a fee for streaming movies to users... while not charging other websites fees... this is ALSO something Comcast has done.

Although.. the "net neutrality" that was passed today is driving criticism due to loopholes... that actually help dominant company's like Comcast. That is not good for you nor I.. the consumer.

Cbr1000Rider
12-21-2010, 3:53 PM
Great letter by Steve Wozniak on the issue

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/steve-wozniak-to-the-fcc-keep-the-internet-free/68294/

ang3c0
12-21-2010, 8:04 PM
Real NN legislation needs to be passed, Yesterday.

RRangel
12-22-2010, 4:45 PM
Well it is here.. we know what we want but did we really get it? It seems there are loopholes in this that makes it favorable for companies like Comcast or ATT... I don't look at today as a victory until I hear a statement from Google about it.

IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT "NET NEUTRALITY" MEANS... PLEASE READ HERE..

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/steve-wozniak-to-the-fcc-keep-the-internet-free/68294/

THEN READ THE FOLLOWING STORIES HERE...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/12/21/fcc.net.neutrality/index.html?hpt=T2

They say elections have consequences and today that's a major understatement. Despite over 300 signatures from House and Senate members opposing FCC internet regulation. Despite a court ruling by a federal appeals court that the FCC does not have the authority. Despite the FCCs own doubt as to their authority to make such regulation, our current president is bent on controlling the internet.

Let there be no mistake. The recent FCC action to foist “net neutrality” on the communications industry is a clear attempt at stifling freedom of speech. It is a construct for the purpose of taking control of electronic communication under the guise of public good. Its supporters hail from the same group of organizations that have been synonymous with George Soros.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's actions to impose regulations on the internet will really amount to what equates to a “fairness doctrine” for the internet. Ask yourself why this nation needs that. You won't be surprised to know that the idea was started by Robert McChesney, a radical University of Illinois professor, who is a self avowed Marxist. Who would have thought?

Julius Genachowski is reportedly a friend of Obama from law school. He visited the president (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html), according to visitor logs, no less than 11 times. So then it's no big surprise that he would decree this takeover given his loyalties

What's taking place right under the nose of the American public is an attempt to silence opposition. This is obviously not about any public good. Only the same dirty tricks that we've come to expect from these people and it's a complete outrage.

bigmike82
12-22-2010, 9:10 PM
Those regulations are necessary, and do not go far enough. The very notion that NN regulation threatens free speech is silly at best.

RRangel
12-22-2010, 9:24 PM
Those regulations are necessary, and do not go far enough. The very notion that NN regulation threatens free speech is silly at best.

Absolutely. In bizzaro world.

Make that Marxist bizzaro world.

JeffM
12-22-2010, 9:30 PM
WTF is with all this commie bullsh*t? If I owned a company like Comcast, I would choke the living sh*t out of Netflix streams, etc. You don't like it? Get another provider.

Free market FTW... always.

RRangel
12-22-2010, 9:39 PM
WTF is with all this commie bullsh*t? If I owned a company like Comcast, I would choke the living sh*t out of Netflix streams, etc. You don't like it? Get another provider.

Free market FTW... always.

Just think for a second and realize why you've never heard any public outcry for net neutrality? Because there isn't any. The demand has been fabricated by shills for the very purpose of taking control. The very man who came up with the idea says as much.

It's not like this is rocket science to figure once you see the players in action. I can't wait until 2012 already. It's going to be funner than November.

BluNorthern
12-22-2010, 9:50 PM
They say elections have consequences and today that's a major understatement. Despite over 300 signatures from House and Senate members opposing FCC internet regulation. Despite a court ruling by a federal appeals court that the FCC does not have the authority. Despite the FCCs own doubt as to their authority to make such regulation, our current president is bent on controlling the internet.

Let there be no mistake. The recent FCC action to foist “net neutrality” on the communications industry is a clear attempt at stifling freedom of speech. It is a construct for the purpose of taking control of electronic communication under the guise of public good. Its supporters hail from the same group of organizations that have been synonymous with George Soros.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's actions to impose regulations on the internet will really amount to what equates to a “fairness doctrine” for the internet. Ask yourself why this nation needs that. You won't be surprised to know that the idea was started by Robert McChesney, a radical University of Illinois professor, who is a self avowed Marxist. Who would have thought?

Julius Genachowski is reportedly a friend of Obama from law school. He visited the president (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html), according to visitor logs, no less than 11 times. So then it's no big surprise that he would decree this takeover given his loyalties

What's taking place right under the nose of the American public is an attempt to silence opposition. This is obviously not about any public good. Only the same dirty tricks that we've come to expect from these people and it's a complete outrage.I knew it was just a matter of time till Limbaughs paranoid fantasy of Net Neutrality being a left wing conspiracy to stifle Conservative speech got legs here. Sounds pretty much word for word what ol' Rush and Sullivan have been repeating over and over again.

Mute
12-22-2010, 10:21 PM
Why do some of you continue to believe that giving the government power to do something "good" will have positive results regardless of their actual motives? Has recent history not shown that every time the government sticks its nose into private industry it just turns into a royal screw up? Yet somehow this one time, it will all be ok? We're boned!

bigmike82
12-22-2010, 10:48 PM
Jesus h Christ. Look at the history of the internet. The concept of neutrality has been a gentleman's agreement since the start. It is the reason the Internet is what it is.

Fact 1. The Internet was created with taxpayer dollars.
Fact 2. Last mile connectivity is largely monopolized by a very small group of providers.
Fact 3. There. Is. No. Free market. In. Telephony.

FCC regulations are necessary to preserve the web until such a time that a truly free market arises.

Do you people seriously supports Att's ability to charge calguns for the privilege of traversing the network?

To expound on Fact 3...

Comcast (and other cable companies) have been allowed to flourish *BECAUSE OF* monopoly agreements. That is, they were allowed to monopolize certain regions and geographical locations. Just like telephone companies. In exchange for this protection, they had to operate under relatively strict government rules. Things that included guaranteed service in low-profit regions, service to all homes, and so forth.

What, suddenly enforcing these rules is marxism? Demanding that these companies honor the spirit in which they did busines is suddenly anti-capitalist? What the hell! That's completely ludicrous.

RRangel
12-23-2010, 4:28 AM
Jesus h Christ. Look at the history of the internet. The concept of neutrality has been a gentleman's agreement since the start. It is the reason the Internet is what it is.

Fact 1. The Internet was created with taxpayer dollars.
Fact 2. Last mile connectivity is largely monopolized by a very small group of providers.
Fact 3. There. Is. No. Free market. In. Telephony.

FCC regulations are necessary to preserve the web until such a time that a truly free market arises.

Do you people seriously supports Att's ability to charge calguns for the privilege of traversing the network?

To expound on Fact 3...

Comcast (and other cable companies) have been allowed to flourish *BECAUSE OF* monopoly agreements. That is, they were allowed to monopolize certain regions and geographical locations. Just like telephone companies. In exchange for this protection, they had to operate under relatively strict government rules. Things that included guaranteed service in low-profit regions, service to all homes, and so forth.

What, suddenly enforcing these rules is marxism? Demanding that these companies honor the spirit in which they did busines is suddenly anti-capitalist? What the hell! That's completely ludicrous.

It's very hard for you to argue that the political left of center establishment cares about my well being and access to the internet. It's very clear why they choose to interfere and once again the people behind the idea have made it clear. I suppose next you're going to tell me that the fairness doctrine is fine for national radio too. You're either completely naive or you share in the same flawed ideology.

bigmike82
12-23-2010, 7:57 AM
"It's very hard for you to argue that the political left of center establishment cares about my well being and access to the internet."
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Look at who is against NN:
Comcast. ATT. Verizon. You know, the big guys who YOU want to have the power to limit what you can see. That's all you're doing. You're telling your ISP that you want to see only what they want you to see.

This is only a 'leftist' issue because many on the right have taken the foolish position that Net Neutrality is somehow an infringement on free speech. This idea is utter and total nonsense. Net Neutrality protects freedom of speech and ensures that you, the consumer, can access whatever you want on the service that *YOU* pay for.

RRangel
12-23-2010, 8:38 AM
I knew it was just a matter of time till Limbaughs paranoid fantasy of Net Neutrality being a left wing conspiracy to stifle Conservative speech got legs here. Sounds pretty much word for word what ol' Rush and Sullivan have been repeating over and over again.

What? Is that all you have? If that's what the man actually beleives then he must be very grounded in common sense. Instead of following your political masters in lockstep you might want to try independent thought some time.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-23-2010, 9:07 AM
Here are the issues...

#1 - The full text of the "Net Neutrality" decree from the FCC has not been made public. How can anyone support or oppose if they don't even know what the details are?

#2 - The FCC, by decree, has circumvented Congress, our elected officials.


This is half baked and typical of this government. Pass huge bills, without reading the actual bill, or rule by decree without letting the public know what the details are until it's already been decided. If anyone is supportive of this type of governance they need to get their head checked.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-23-2010, 9:11 AM
I knew it was just a matter of time till Limbaughs paranoid fantasy of Net Neutrality being a left wing conspiracy to stifle Conservative speech got legs here. Sounds pretty much word for word what ol' Rush and Sullivan have been repeating over and over again.

Have you read the full text of "net neutrality"? How do you know what is or isn't in the decree? For anyone to act as though they know how this will play out is incorrect considering the decree, in it's full text, has not been made public. Does that not bother you in the least?

BluNorthern
12-23-2010, 9:12 AM
What? Is that all you have? If that's what the man actually beleives then he must be very grounded in common sense. Instead of following your political masters in lockstep you might want to try independent thought some time.I get all my information from various sources, since I cited Rush and Sullivan, it would follow that I listen to them. I have made comments on this and other forums repeatedly about using multiple sources (left and right) to find the truth, so don't go there. I don't see where ISP's being able to throttle down or limit access to web data is good for anybody except them (allowing preferred content based on fees paid to them). You need to research this further, if you want freedom of information and access to the web you need some kind of net neutrality. When was the last time any corporation did anything to benefit the public over the dollar and themselves? Or do you want your access filtered? And don't come up with the switch ISP's if you don't like it...not an option in many more rural areas.

BluNorthern
12-23-2010, 9:18 AM
Have you read the full text of "net neutrality"? How do you know what is or isn't in the decree? For anyone to act as though they know how this will play out is incorrect considering the decree, in it's full text, has not been made public. Does that not bother you in the least?No I haven't, and yes it is a very real concern. But I also know that this is opposed most of all by corporations, and that the Supreme court has given them the same rights and individuals in this country. I also know that since corporations have unlimited money to buy influence, I'd prefer that they not be allowed to start shaping the internet in a way that puts their profits over our access. I'm not saying I know all about this, this is just my opinion now on my understanding of it and my knowledge of how things seem to work in the U.S. these days.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-23-2010, 9:25 AM
No I haven't, and yes it is a very real concern. But I also know that this is opposed most of all by corporations, and that the Supreme court has given them the same rights and individuals in this country. I also know that since corporations have unlimited money to buy influence, I'd prefer that they not be allowed to start shaping the internet in a way that puts their profits over our access. I'm not saying I know all about this, this is just my opinion now on my understanding of it and my knowledge of how things seem to work in the U.S. these days.


The larger issue, as I see it, is that the government is ruling by decree in the shadows instead of letting the public know the details. Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree. Would you not agree? It's the accountability piece.

BluNorthern
12-23-2010, 9:36 AM
The larger issue, as I see it, is that the government is ruling by decree in the shadows instead of letting the public know the details. Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree. Would you not agree? It's the accountability piece.I don't know. I have NO faith in congress anymore, citing my previous post about them working for (getting bribed by) corporations and special interests. That is what drives our elected officials, nothing else. There is no accountability anymore anywhere IMO. I do wonder if maybe this is being done in an end around kind of way because congress can't come up with anything because of all the conflicting 'contributions' clouding the issue. At the risk of repeating myself...I have lost ALL faith in our government, and only see it getting worse.

bigmike82
12-23-2010, 9:54 AM
"Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree."
The FCC had handled crap like this since its inception. That's the point behind agencies like it. If you want to do away with it, fine. Go lobby your congressman. But in this specific instance, the FCC has taken a (small) step in the right direction.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-23-2010, 11:10 AM
"Additionally, if anyone is going to make changes it should be Congress...not the FCC by decree."
The FCC had handled crap like this since its inception. That's the point behind agencies like it. If you want to do away with it, fine. Go lobby your congressman. But in this specific instance, the FCC has taken a (small) step in the right direction.

Incorrect. The US District Court out of DC, in April, ruled that the FCC lacks the authority.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193558/ns/technology_and_science-security/


And again, without knowing what the details are, being that the government has yet to make the information public, how can you say its a step in the right direction?

Wrong on both counts.

bigmike82
12-23-2010, 11:50 AM
They absolutely have the legal basis. It's unfortunate the dingbats judges ruled as they did, but there's plenty of law that the FCC can base their judgements on. What they need to do is simply classify internet service as a communications service (which it obviously is) and be done with it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf

While not the full order, it's a pretty good synopsis.

Again, what happened was a small, tiny step in the right direction.

You may be happy being force-fed content by your ISP. I am not.

UBFRAGD
12-23-2010, 12:37 PM
I half expected to see that pdf authored by George Orwell by the time I read it through.

If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

Kind of OT, but I did want to mention, I live next to pulic housing in SF, and the residents enjoy free unlimited wifi.

I think the internet is one of the few things in America that actually works and shows signs of continual improvement while adding value to my life. What in hell do I want the feds tampering with something like that? They have a very small track record of succesful improvements via regulation.

bigmike82
12-23-2010, 1:13 PM
"If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this. "
Because last mile connectivity is LEGALLY MONOPOLIZED.

"And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media."
Who needs 30 round mags? Who needs semi-auto rifles? Who needs bayonets?

"They have a very small track record of succesful improvements via regulation."
Uhm....the internet was a product of the DOD. Not of private enterprise.

BluNorthern
12-23-2010, 1:54 PM
If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

Because the big players all but have a monopoly and are constantly working on eliminating whatever competition they have by acquiring them. I'm afraid the idea of a free market taking care of anything in cases like this is a myth. Doesn't work when the cards are held by such few players.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

That reminds me of...who really needs thirty rounds as opposed to ten. So you are happy with the scenario of having your internet viewing manipulated by your ISP? Not me. Where do you make the connection of wanting equal internet access and copyright infringement??

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

If we don't get net neutrality with closed loopholes you can count on your fees going up when providers either start charging for what they consider "premium" sites or start charging certain sites fees that are then passed on to us. Ever see what is constantly going on with cable and satellite fees?

RRangel
12-23-2010, 5:20 PM
If the demand for non-throttled internet is so important to the consumer, why aren't we seeing independent providers advertising non-throttled? Or the big players offering a special non-throttled connection? It seems the free market would take care of a conflict like this.

Because the big players all but have a monopoly and are constantly working on eliminating whatever competition they have by acquiring them. I'm afraid the idea of a free market taking care of anything in cases like this is a myth. Doesn't work when the cards are held by such few players.

And who really needs non-throttled? I suspect people who value it are the same people participating in ways to avoid paying for copyrighted media.

That reminds me of...who really needs thirty rounds as opposed to ten. So you are happy with the scenario of having your internet viewing manipulated by your ISP? Not me. Where do you make the connection of wanting equal internet access and copyright infringement??

I expect it will ultimately end up costing me more money to get on the net. New fees and taxes always seem to get passed on down the line to the end consumer.

If we don't get net neutrality with closed loopholes you can count on your fees going up when providers either start charging for what they consider "premium" sites or start charging certain sites fees that are then passed on to us. Ever see what is constantly going on with cable and satellite fees?

The pretense is up already so you may want to give it a rest. That hand has already been played and the intentions are known so your comments are comical. It's pretty obvious at this point why Obama's appointed FCC chairman is ignoring congress and the courts. Because it's the quickest way for the FCC and the current administration to regulate information and influence content.

bigmike82
12-23-2010, 10:58 PM
"Because it's the quickest way for the FCC and the current administration to regulate information and influence content."
That's total and utter crap.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-23-2010, 11:23 PM
They absolutely have the legal basis. It's unfortunate the dingbats judges ruled as they did, but there's plenty of law that the FCC can base their judgements on. What they need to do is simply classify internet service as a communications service (which it obviously is) and be done with it.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf

While not the full order, it's a pretty good synopsis.

Again, what happened was a small, tiny step in the right direction.

You may be happy being force-fed content by your ISP. I am not.


I think the US District Court Judge has a more complete grasp of the law on this matter than you do...no offense.

How could you possibly know the linked press release is a good synopsis when the full text has not been released?

What content have I been force fed by my ISP?

bigmike82
12-23-2010, 11:34 PM
"I think the US District Court Judge has a more complete grasp of the law on this matter than you do...no offense."
The lawyers of the FCC obviously disagree, and have shown what basis they have for making their decision. It's right there.

"How could you possibly know the linked press release is a good synopsis when the full text has not been released?"
It's straight from the horses mouth. While its certainly possible that the FCC mentioned aliens and anal probes, I'm not going to give that notion any credence until I've seen something to support it. There's no evidence that the FCC is leaving out any material statements.

"What content have I been force fed by my ISP?"
Currently...not much. But that's only because consumer outcry stopped Comcast from doing much more than screwing with torrent traffic. When you do away with Net Neutrality, there's *NOTHING* stopping Comcast from accepting money that will allow Huffington Post to display in a matter of miliseconds, and Calguns from failing to display for a few seconds.

JDay
12-24-2010, 5:05 PM
The recent FCC action to foist “net neutrality” on the communications industry is a clear attempt at stifling freedom of speech.

You're confusing net neutrality with the COICA treaty.

JDay
12-24-2010, 5:06 PM
WTF is with all this commie bullsh*t? If I owned a company like Comcast, I would choke the living sh*t out of Netflix streams, etc. You don't like it? Get another provider.

Free market FTW... always.

You should learn a little something about common carriers.

RRangel
12-25-2010, 9:24 AM
You're confusing net neutrality with the COICA treaty.

Actually, what's important is that the message in my statement is clear.

RRangel
12-25-2010, 9:27 AM
"Because it's the quickest way for the FCC and the current administration to regulate information and influence content."
That's total and utter crap.

There is pretty much no denying what government controllers are after. The FCC's actions are Hugo Chavez approved. Congress would beg to differ with your opinion and there is absolutely no popular mandate for such FCC action.

bigmike82
12-25-2010, 7:44 PM
"The FCC's actions are Hugo Chavez approved."
*facepalm*

Okay, I'm going to stop feeding the troll now.

JDay
12-25-2010, 8:21 PM
Actually, what's important is that the message in my statement is clear.

You should take off the tinfoil hat, I think it's getting to your brain. Anyway, COICA is what you have to worry about, there is a reason why the media companies do not want network neutrality, it interferes with their monopoly.

RRangel
12-26-2010, 7:30 AM
You should take off the tinfoil hat, I think it's getting to your brain. Anyway, COICA is what you have to worry about, there is a reason why the media companies do not want network neutrality, it interferes with their monopoly.

Mr. know-it-all, my premise has nothing to do with monopolies. Do not change the subject. Once again there is no popular mandate for this FCC power grab. The Obama administration has overtly ignored Congress and our courts to take control of something that they have no power to regulate. Are you telling me that this action is fine? That we apparently have an executive, legislate, and judicial branches of government for no reason? Your statements would make one wonder who's side you're on.

jonyg
12-26-2010, 1:50 PM
Both net neutrality and the COICA are huge deals. The internet is the biggest tool for the 1st amendment today.

Funny how the COICA was coauthored by none other than the much-adored gun control fanatic from our beloved state of California....Senator Diane Feinstein.

Guess she's against both the first and the second amendment.

Merc1138
12-26-2010, 2:48 PM
WTF is with all this commie bullsh*t? If I owned a company like Comcast, I would choke the living sh*t out of Netflix streams, etc. You don't like it? Get another provider.

Free market FTW... always.

And when it's the networks between you and the content you want that are causing the problem, how exactly does getting a different ISP fix anything?

Open your command prompt. Type in: tracert www.calguns.net

It'll show you a list of the crap in between you, and calguns.net. You have no control over any of that even if you decide to change your ISP. That's how the internet works. You do not connect to websites via direct connection. You end up going through a half dozen or more other networks. "Free Market" does NOT work in this circumstance.

Yes, it's ridiculous that the government needs to regulate something to keep the status quo, but the fact is that ISPs have been playing games like this for years now on a small scale and they're only going to ramp it up if left alone. Now how the government has gone about the regulation, that's a bit of a problem. Then again waiting for a popular opinion to raise the issue with technology... pfft. Just think of how many people are actually still satisfied with dialup, they'd never know the difference. Most people using the internet can barely operate their own computer, let alone know that a network is throttling their content with no way around it.

It'd be like southern california blaming the local municipal water company for not having any water, when it's the state causing the problem further up north.

RRangel
12-26-2010, 3:09 PM
Both net neutrality and the COICA are huge deals. The internet is the biggest tool for the 1st amendment today.

Funny how the COICA was coauthored by none other than the much-adored gun control fanatic from our beloved state of California....Senator Diane Feinstein.

Guess she's against both the first and the second amendment.

Robert McChesney's Freedom Press, as well as these six organizations, Pew Charitable Trusts, Bill Moyers's Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Joyce Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, are advocating for "net neutrality." They're funding advocacy and "research".

It's not a surprise that some of these organizations are synonymous with gun prohibition too.

These were the same groups that helped push for Campaign Finance Reform (aka incumbent protection) while the George Soros' non-profit groups like Moveon.org were conveniently exempt.

JDay
12-26-2010, 3:32 PM
Mr. know-it-all, my premise has nothing to do with monopolies. Do not change the subject. Once again there is no popular mandate for this FCC power grab. The Obama administration has overtly ignored Congress and our courts to take control of something that they have no power to regulate. Are you telling me that this action is fine? That we apparently have an executive, legislate, and judicial branches of government for no reason? Your statements would make one wonder who's side you're on.

And you show yet again that you have no clue what you are talking about. The FCC does have the power to regulate communications, it's in their name and they've been doing it since their inception. This power was given to them by a congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154). You also do not seem to realize that the internet was created as a means for the military to be able to communicate during a nuclear war, i.e. the US government owns it. This is why the US government controls IP allocations and the root DNS servers (this is handled by ICANN under a contract from the US Department of Commerce, previously handled by IANA under a contract from the US Department of Defense).

Both net neutrality and the COICA are huge deals. The internet is the biggest tool for the 1st amendment today.

Funny how the COICA was coauthored by none other than the much-adored gun control fanatic from our beloved state of California....Senator Diane Feinstein.

Guess she's against both the first and the second amendment.

COICA is the only one that threatens the First Amendment, net neutrality is meant to ensure that the internet does not break up into a bunch of separate segments, i.e. AT&T's internet vs Verizon's internet vs Comcast's internet. The internet as we know it will cease to exist if we do not have net neutrality. Feinstein also has nothing to do with COICA (other than voting in favor of the bill), it is the work of one Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

RRangel
12-26-2010, 4:19 PM
And you show yet again that you have no clue what you are talking about. The FCC does have the power to regulate communications, it's in their name and they've been doing it since their inception. This power was given to them by a congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154). You also do not seem to realize that the internet was created as a means for the military to be able to communicate during a nuclear war, i.e. the US government owns it. This is why the US government controls IP allocations and the root DNS servers (this is handled by ICANN under a contract from the US Department of Commerce, previously handled by IANA under a contract from the US Department of Defense).

You couldn't be more wrong. Why would you suppose I'd mention that the courts disagree? In Comcast Corporation v. FCC (http://www.techlawjournal.com/docs/2010/20100406comcast.pdf) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would beg to differ. The court held that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate network management practices of internet service providers.

The FCC decided to conveniently reinterpret its authority. Private entities have to abide by courts but political class controllers feel that they are above the law.

The internet is not going anywhere unless these morons find a way to screw it up. They can't keep their grubby hands off of our freedom of speech.

JDay
12-26-2010, 5:07 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. Why would you suppose I'd mention that the courts disagree? In Comcast Corporation v. FCC (http://www.techlawjournal.com/docs/2010/20100406comcast.pdf) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would beg to differ. The court held that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate network management practices of internet service providers.

Perhaps that would be because that case had nothing to do with network neutrality and everything to do with Comcast being able to throttle the connection speed of users who put excessive strain on their network (i.e. software and movie pirates downloading 10's of TBs of data a month), which they would only do when you were actually downloading a torrent. Comcast has also been in trouble in the past for degrading Vonage (a competing VoIP carrier) connections on their network to the point of the service being unusable (anti-competitive conduct). Again, you do not know what you are talking about, perhaps you should try actually reading what is said in that pdf file.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/docs/2010/20100406comcast.pdf

The Commission may exercise this “ancillary” authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is “reasonably ancillary to the . . . effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.” Am. Library ***’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The Commission has failed to make that showing.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/comcast_vonage.html

But Comcast was hit with more bad publicity after admitting that it had paid people off the street to fill seats at an FCC hearing on its network practices in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The paid attendees evinced loud support for Comcast's representatives and blocked critics of the company from getting into the hearing.

Makes you wonder if they're paying off judges.

bigmike82
12-27-2010, 8:45 AM
JDay's pretty much owning you. I'd step back and actually learn about what you're trying to argue.

RRangel
12-27-2010, 12:13 PM
Perhaps that would be because that case had nothing to do with network neutrality and everything to do with Comcast being able to throttle the connection speed of users who put excessive strain on their network (i.e. software and movie pirates downloading 10's of TBs of data a month), which they would only do when you were actually downloading a torrent. Comcast has also been in trouble in the past for degrading Vonage (a competing VoIP carrier) connections on their network to the point of the service being unusable (anti-competitive conduct). Again, you do not know what you are talking about, perhaps you should try actually reading what is said in that pdf file.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/docs/2010/20100406comcast.pdf




Did you even read the ruling? The FCC lost the case. The FCC commission lacks the authority to regulate the internet. It's not about what Comcast did. It's about the FCC not having authority.

FCC vs Comcast ruling where FCC loses (http://www.techlawjournal.com/docs/2010/20100406comcast.pdf)

It is true that “Congress gave the [Commission] broad
and adaptable jurisdiction so that it can keep pace with rapidly
evolving communications technologies.” Resp’t’s Br. 19. It
is also true that “[t]he Internet is such a technology,” id.,
indeed, “arguably the most important innovation in
communications in a generation,” id. at 30. Yet
notwithstanding the “difficult regulatory problem of rapid
technological change” posed by the communications industry,
“the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated
powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to
regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer . . .
Commission authority.” NARUC II, 533 F.2d at 618 (internal
quotation marks and footnote omitted). Because the
Commission has failed to tie its assertion of ancillary
authority over Comcast’s Internet service to any “statutorily
mandated responsibility,” Am. Library, 406 F.3d at 692, we
grant the petition for review and vacate the Order.
So ordered.

This has everything to do with "net neutrality" but nice attempt at spin.

RRangel
12-27-2010, 12:44 PM
I love how the pro Obama interference faction attempts to spin everything into obfuscation. That somehow when the FCC does not have statutory authority over something it gets conveniently twisted to mean what it does not mean. Or the emotional arguments against big business take center stage over the topic at hand. That political class elitists in government do not have authority to control everything they please for their own political gain.

JDay
12-27-2010, 4:08 PM
Did you even read the ruling? The FCC lost the case. The FCC commission lacks the authority to regulate the internet. It's not about what Comcast did. It's about the FCC not having authority.

FCC vs Comcast ruling where FCC loses (http://www.techlawjournal.com/docs/2010/20100406comcast.pdf)



This has everything to do with "net neutrality" but nice attempt at spin.

No it does not. You need to read that ruling and actually comprehend what is being said. That case deals with throttling users internet connections, not with net neutrality. Comcast also won the appeal on a technicality since the FCC policy being enforced was only written in footnotes. Comcast knows it is going to lose this case when it heads to the Supreme Court, this is evidenced by the fact that they know longer throttle the connections of customers who are downloading torrents. However, Congress is likely to straighten this out before then by specifically granting the FCC authority to regulate the internet (a power it already has since it is a communications medium, in fact they already have regulatory power over the telecommunications industry). Do you really believe that If the FCC can make cussing over a telephone line illegal (it is, just not enforced) that they cannot regulate everything that is done over those same lines? Much of Comcast's infrastructure was paid for by us taxpayers also, that alone is reason enough to not allow them to control what content any subscriber can access.

The only connection that case has to network neutrality is that a lower court believe the FCC failed to establish that "the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission’s effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities", which would make it impossible for them to do any regulation of the internet if true.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2010/04/fcc-loses-comcast-appeal-on-net-regulation.html

We recently distilled the holdings of these three cases into a two-part test. In American Library ***’n v. FCC, we wrote: “The Commission . . . may exercise ancillary jurisdiction only when two conditions are satisfied: (1) the Commission’s general jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the Communications Act] covers the regulated subject and (2) the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission’s effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.” 406 F.3d at 691–92; see also Order, 23 F.C.C.R. at 13,035, ¶ 15 n.64 (citing the American Library test). Comcast concedes that the Commission’s action here satisfies the first requirement because the company’s Internet service qualifies as “interstate and foreign communication by wire” within the meaning of Title I of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 152(a). Whether the Commission’s action satisfies American Library’s second requirement is the central issue in this case.

It should also be noted that this case is anything but over, it will be heading to the Supreme Court. I am more than confident that the FCC will win this case in the end, that day will be a great day for consumers and the First Amendment.

JDay
12-27-2010, 4:36 PM
I love how the pro Obama interference faction attempts to spin everything into obfuscation. That somehow when the FCC does not have statutory authority over something it gets conveniently twisted to mean what it does not mean. Or the emotional arguments against big business take center stage over the topic at hand. That political class elitists in government do not have authority to control everything they please for their own political gain.

I am not pro Obama in the least. And you are plain wrong that the FCC does not have statutory authority, I even posted the relevant sections of the United States Code.

_6zO6brdF-c N4fPSm8yemA

tEQmIEoMUJY

RRangel
12-27-2010, 4:41 PM
I am not pro Obama in the least. And you are plain wrong that the FCC does not have statutory authority, I even posted the relevant sections of the United States Code.


Why don't you instead say that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is wrong? That over 300 Senators and Congressman are wrong. That there is in fact no mandate for an FCC power grab.

Instead of admitting that you're wrong, now it's "not over" and "I am more than confident that the FCC will win this case." How convenient. I would very much look forward to the day that the Supreme Court hands the FCC its ***.

JDay
12-27-2010, 4:43 PM
Why don't you instead say that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is wrong? That over 300 Senators and Congressman are wrong. That there is in fact no mandate for an FCC power grab.

Instead of admitting that you're wrong, now it's "not over" and "I am more than confident that the FCC will win this case." How convenient. I would very much look forward to the day that the Supreme Court hands the FCC its ***.

Congress is wrong? Strange, they're in the process of expanding the FCC's power so there is no question over this. The only people in Congress who are against this are the ones who have their campaigns funded by Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. You should watch those videos I posted.

RRangel
12-27-2010, 4:45 PM
Congress is wrong? Strange, they're in the process of expanding the FCC's power so there is no question over this. The only people in Congress who are against this are the ones who have their campaigns funded by Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. You should watch those videos I posted.

FAIL.

Can'thavenuthingood
12-29-2010, 6:59 PM
I'm against this net neutrality.
I see no reason for the government to get involved with the internet. They will only add fees, taxes, surcharges, excise taxes and anything to help pay for some dam thing they dream up.

I think New America and Public Knowledge are supported by George Soros, I'd have to research it but seems to me I read a doc or article somewhere.

New America article here (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/search_source_americas_gun_obsession_12846) another here (http://www.newamerica.net/node/8749). They want to register guns, makes it easier to find the criminals.
Public Knowledge (http://www.publicknowledge.org/about/who/funders) is directly funded by the Open Society Institute (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1238).
Senator John Kerry (http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/12/kerry-asks-copps-and-clyburn-t.php) is for Net Neutrality.

No credibility there for me.

I don't like regulatory agencies running the government, way too Czarlike for me.
Its for the Congress to decide.

Vick

RRangel
01-01-2011, 10:53 AM
I'm against this net neutrality.
I see no reason for the government to get involved with the internet. They will only add fees, taxes, surcharges, excise taxes and anything to help pay for some dam thing they dream up.

I think New America and Public Knowledge are supported by George Soros, I'd have to research it but seems to me I read a doc or article somewhere.

New America article here (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/search_source_americas_gun_obsession_12846) another here (http://www.newamerica.net/node/8749). They want to register guns, makes it easier to find the criminals.
Public Knowledge (http://www.publicknowledge.org/about/who/funders) is directly funded by the Open Society Institute (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1238).
Senator John Kerry (http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/12/kerry-asks-copps-and-clyburn-t.php) is for Net Neutrality.

No credibility there for me.

I don't like regulatory agencies running the government, way too Czarlike for me.
Its for the Congress to decide.

Vick

Supporters of government interference will never have a conversation about Robert McChesney and Freedom Press. When you bring up the various people and organizations behind "net neutrality" the silence becomes deafening.

Because this man, his organization, and his cohort's ideological beliefs give them away. These freedom phonies and their plans have been covered in various media formats, so much so, that their intentions are undeniable. Our forum naysayers would rather change the focus of the conversation.

anthonyca
01-01-2011, 11:03 AM
Comcast has been caught throttling before.. I have been throttled and it truely makes your blood boil.. especially when you call Comcast and ask if they have reinstated throttling and they laugh and say "yes, we have".

If the FCC passed a TRUE "net neutrality" policy today, then good for them. People such as I, the consumer will benefit.

If the FCC passed a net neutrality policy that is riddled with loopholes.. we may be doomed.

Given their track record, this will not be good for us. Look at the FDA, SEC, FED, FDA. We will have some one from google, comcast, or another Internet company as a high level official in the FCC soon. I am willing to bet on it.

Scratch705
01-01-2011, 2:03 PM
for all those that claim the private ISP's can do what they want. lets see how happy you are if they really do get their way, and anything gun related gets restricted to lower than 56K speeds such as this forum. where gun manufacturers get charged extra for having their pages up. or online firearm dealers such as midway, palmetto, etc are also charged higher rates due to their content of "firearms" which is unliked by the ISPs. in which then they pass on that extra fees to us consumers.

or slowing down connection to netflix b/c it cuts into their video on demand services, or disables any web pages that complains about any one of their sub-companies.

sometimes, private businesses do not have the consumers in mind, and the only recourse is the government. i also do like how some here complain that the government is all big and evil, but yet call those who serve for the government through the military are honorable or proud to have served. if anything joining PMCs should be more honorable to you since it is private organization, not a government entity.

in this case of net neutrality, Jday has it right. there is no other competition, Comcast, ATT, Verizon, Time Warner Cable they own the connection to the internet. any little startup ISPs, rent access from these top ISPs since they are the keepers of the gateway. there is no workaround, there is no alternative, they are the only choice. they own all the cables running throughout the country. the only way a startup ISP can get around them is to lay new network cable lines, and what do you think that costs?

bigmike82
01-01-2011, 3:42 PM
"the only way a startup ISP can get around them is to lay new network cable lines, and what do you think that costs?"
Oh, and by the way, good luck getting approval from your local government to lay those lines. ;)

Hell, the big boys have sued smaller cities who were going to offer broadband to their citizens. I mean...come on. This completely ludicrious. The notion that there is any semblence of fair competition when it comes to non-cell telephony, internet service and cable is completely insane.

HotRails
01-01-2011, 9:31 PM
OK, help a layman understand here. I understand the part that states that this will prevent ISP's from interfering with content on the internet. But will this bill strengthen the FCC's power to interfere with content, as some suggest or will it only increase their power to prevent private entities from doing so.

bigmike82
01-02-2011, 12:56 AM
It prevents the companies from prioritizing traffic from various sites over others; it doesn't prevent them from prioritizing traffic *types*. So they can still implement QoS for VOIP, Video, and so forth. What they CAN'T do, if Net Neutrality is enacted, is favor democrat.com over calguns.net.

Which...by the way...is exactly what RRangel (and other NN opponents) is arguing for. NN isn't about the FCC controlling what passes on the internet...it's about preventing the major ISPs (who have enjoyed decades of monopolistic protections from the gov) from controlling what you can look at.

botsdots
01-03-2011, 9:28 AM
My prediction:

Internet connectivity prices will skyrocket (like $100-$150/mo for standard cable internet) and the "Television" portion will continue to drop in price and be around $10/mo. Then all the low cost providers (Vonage, Netflix, Hulu Plus, etc.) won't look so attractive. Satellite companies won't be able to compete.

The last mile folks will get their money somehow.