FCC adopts Net neutrality rules to ban Internet discrimination

[texastea]

What's wrong with it as it is? What can big govt do for it that private companies can't?

This will be another "free healthcare, if you like your plan you can keep it, period!" scam just like all the others this admin has pulled. I learned a long time ago that once someone lies to you or screws you they will do it again and again. Obama, Jarrett, and the rest of this admin are like crooked tv evangelists who seem to have much of the country under some sort of spell. I'm just waiting for the poison koolaid to start flowing.

You can bet that the law will have all sorts of fine print in it that will expand big govt's role in the internet and how it will work, how we can use it, what we will and won't be able to do now, etc.

I pay a whopping $20 a month or so for high speed internet. I also voluntarily pay an extra couple hundred bucks a month for a special direct securities trading platform I use a bit, and have paid a fair amount of money to make my home and office computers as secure as possible.

And if I ever decide to get rid of all of that for some strange reason, I can access the internet for "free" from a number of places a short drive or walk from my house - there's an internet cafe in a restaurant near my office, another one at my country club near home, and there's always the good ol' library. But in life you generally get what you pay for, and nothing is "free".

There is nothing wrong with the Internet access as it is, in fact, that's the whole point of net neutrality; to keep ISPs from creating tiered service that would favor large customers and thereby make it difficult for small and startup operations from competing.

I'm not sure what your discussion of "free" Internet service as a part of this policy is based on. I haven't seen anything that suggests such a thing.

 

[MorganKane]

Funny thing is that the FCC is supposed to be independent, but the FCC was called to Congress to answer questions about whether he was in communication with tbe White House about these new rules, and he refused to show up. Does that sound independent to you?

Just a dumb question: is all data the same, and should all data be treated equally? For example, streaming video and voice data needs to be quite fast to prevent the video or audio from being distorted. However, the data on this site, for example, does not need the same amount of bandwidth for the consumer of that service to obtain the same "performance." Should an ISP treat all such data the same, or are there good technical reasons to treat different types of data differently? If so, who's can better determine that, the private community that is responsible to its customers, or a gov't agency which is not responsible to anyone.

Is net neutrality a regyulatory framework looking for a problem to solve?

It isnt about prioritizing streaming video over static http. It it isnt about threating all data the same as much as it is how you treat other network or sites.
The bill is about preventing corporations from controlling the internet.
In my area we have ATT or Comcast. Thats pretty much all you have.
Now imagine both of them saying that they will not allow access to Netflix because netflix is a competitor.
How about Ted Turners companies controlling an ISP and limiting all internet access to conservative sites..

net neutrality is a real problem and needs to be solved. Its already been addresses in other civilized countries.
The internet should be free from interference from corporations.

Pretty much any organization that works for a free internet in some form or fashion has been for this bill.

Imagine this was phone service.
You got your phone lines from ATT.
Target made a deal with ATT so when you tried to call Walmart you will always get a busy signal since they only allowed 1 call to Walmart at the time.
Or ATT was a Obama supporter and allowed no calls to a conservative candidate.
Today you buy phone service and you can call both Walmart and Target.
They can't restrict who you call. I like it like that.

As the bill with FCC stands there are more work to be done but at least its out of the hands of corporations.
While I can't stand the government to interfere, I rather see the FCC being the referee at this point.
The role of the FCC and its powers needs to be defined and controlled.

 

[texastea]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

 

[MorganKane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

That was funny.
Great way to explain some of this.

 

[JR Ewing]

If you've read the fine print on all 322 pages and are ok with it, cool.

If I'm not mistaken, the supposed premise of the whole thing is that big govt is going to make the internets "fair" for the little guy by basically slowing it down for the big corps who can afford more and faster so that they're no better or faster than anyone else?

I have not read it, but I don't trust this admin at all - they have a very bad track record. I was called a conspiracy nut and all sorts of other things years ago for saying the ACA was not a good thing. Turns out I was not so stupid after all.

Then there's the corporate and private loan bailouts, cash for clunkers, the screwing of GM investors in the bailout, the immigration amnesty exec order, the record number of total exec orders / memos, doubling the amount of people on food stamps, doubling the debt in 6 years despite previous debt levels being "unpatriotic", using various government agencies to bully and intimidate companies and individuals, the latest power grab on gun ammo, etc. I shudder to think what's next - maybe an exec order to do away with the 22nd Amendment?

This is what I really love - many of these added taxes impact me, my business, and my clients:
Full List of Obama Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform

 

[Cheops]

JR, has the 322 page document even been released yet?

If it has will someone link it.

 

[tommyguns2]

Pretty much any organization that works for a free internet in some form or fashion has been for this bill.


They can't restrict who you call. I like it like that.

As the bill with FCC stands there are more work to be done but at least its out of the hands of corporations.
While I can't stand the government to interfere, I rather see the FCC being the referee at this point.
The role of the FCC and its powers needs to be defined and controlled.

You make some good points, which I appreciate. But when you say a free Internet, do you really mean that? My guess is that a "free" Internet would be so slow that you wouldn't want to use it. A paid-for Internet gives the private companies an incentive to invest in new bandwidth technologies, and further infrastructure.

I wonder if the issue of two service providers using their market power to quash other economic activity would already by covered by the Sherman anti-trust act?

 

[Cheops]

JR, has the 322 page document even been released yet?

If it has will someone link it.

To answer my own question, NO THE DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED YET (unless it came out today).

How can anyone be preaching the benefits of this when we don't even know what it is really all about? Why won't they release the entire document if it's such a good thing?

Gauntlet awaits Internet rules | TheHill

Because the text of the rules has not yet been made public, it’s difficult to judge how well they might hold up. The prime questions will be whether or not the agency can sufficiently justify reversing the last decade of its treatment of the Web and whether it took the appropriate administrative steps to get here.

 

[BigGameHunter]

From what I am hearing it could be 30 days. Then it may be released through the Federal Register.

 

[MorganKane]

You make some good points, which I appreciate. But when you say a free Internet, do you really mean that? My guess is that a "free" Internet would be so slow that you wouldn't want to use it. A paid-for Internet gives the private companies an incentive to invest in new bandwidth technologies, and further infrastructure.

I wonder if the issue of two service providers using their market power to quash other economic activity would already by covered by the Sherman anti-trust act?

when I say free internet I am not talking about it should be free to the end user, but free from interference from corporations and government.
Free from corporations limit your content by restricting bandwidth to competitors.
Comcast owns NBCunivseral, now imagine if they said they will only give any Fox site or stations very limited access.

 

[JR Ewing]

[video]http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000358707[/video]

 

[MorganKane]

If you've read the fine print on all 322 pages and are ok with it, cool.

If I'm not mistaken, the supposed premise of the whole thing is that big govt is going to make the internets "fair" for the little guy by basically slowing it down for the big corps who can afford more and faster so that they're no better or faster than anyone else?

I have not read it, but I don't trust this admin at all - they have a very bad track record. I was called a conspiracy nut and all sorts of other things years ago for saying the ACA was not a good thing. Turns out I was not so stupid after all.

No, thats not it.
Net neutrality just means that an ISP cant restrict its bandwidth to end points based on content.
It isnt about slowing it down but controlling that bandwidth.

if we let every ISP restrict where we could surf, what we could read and what kind of traffic we can pass then we are fcked.

I dont trust the government much but in this case I trust the ISPs less.
They have already tried to mess with net neutrality.

We have been enjoying net neutrality since the internet became common usage, I really dont want to see it change.
Pretty much the civilized world has figured this out, I dont see no reason we dont want to do the same.

Next step is to control the power of the FCC.