FCC votes to enforce net neutrality by regulating ISPs, unleashes municipal broadband

1131415161719»

Comments

  • Reply 361 of 376
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Oh look - another poster who tries to avoid making any actual arguments



    So where’s he wrong?




    He may or may not turn out to be wrong, but he provides no reasoning or evidence for his assertions, and refuses to even to engage in discussion (the homework clause). An entirely unsupported prediction is indistinguishable from a random guess and, in this context, equally pointless.

  • Reply 362 of 376
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     



    Oh look - another poster who tries to avoid making any actual arguments with the "not doing your homework" excuse, then makes random vague assertions about unknowable things that he thinks would have happened if something else had happened (that didn't because it wasn't needed back then), and then finishes with some classic unsupported slippery slope nonsense about higher costs and government intervention. Not even a token attempt to link proposed cause and effect in any way whatsoever. 

     

    And, just to be clear, do you happen to have a good description of the processes that prevent cartels and monopolies in unregulated "true capitalist economies" - because that is the underlying issue here.




    Oh look another person too lazy to pick up a history book for one of the many examples so they make a bunch of straw arguments.  Every revolution has been fought by people who could no longer stand their government looking out for "their" best interests.  Always seems so sweet and innocent at the beginning, "Hi we're from the government and here to help you!"




     

    I assume that you mean "straw man" arguments, but I didn't make any. The fallacies are all on your side. Your characterization of the major cause of revolution is quaint, but incorrect. The entire purpose of establishing a process of government is to serve the interests of the people and, while that has often been subverted, the implication of your statement is therefore that all governments should be overthrown. Maybe you believe that, in which case feel free to say so and that, too, will end the discussion.

     

    In this case, unless anyone can argue otherwise (and so far it's just been baseless assertions like yours), it seems clear that the FCC is attempting (with widespread support from diverse organizations) to protect the rights of broadband customers against a rather obvious attempt by ISPs to use delivery leverage to get paid twice for the same delivery service. I realize that you think that it is a given that any regulation is bad (presumably unless you happen to support the cause), but then there is nothing to discuss. You really can't just throw up comments about revolutions as if that somehow made your argument.

     

    I suppose that it's pointless for me to ask again if you have any response to my question about cartels and monopolies.

  • Reply 363 of 376
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    no reasoning or evidence for his assertions

     

    The behavior of the FCC regarding the rest of what it administers isn’t proof enough?

  • Reply 364 of 376
    pbrstreetgpbrstreetg Posts: 184member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     

    Read your history books.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.

     

    Do you honestly think the web would be where it is today had the FCC intervened (give or take) twenty years ago?  (While I'll argue they are scourges on the Internet) do you think there would be a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc. as we know it?

     

    Two things will come of this, first, the Internet will become more expensive for everyone.  Second its only a matter of time before an administration (republican or democrat) starts pushing their idea of an "Internet equal representation policy" or whatever newspeak term they decide to give to it.

     

    In true capitalism people have to have the power to choose where to spend their earned wealth.  If there is a societal need a capitalist will  have an opportunity to fill that void.  Marxism, Socialism, Communism does not provide that opportunity.


     

    Consumer electronic is highly regulated by the FCC and its always amazing what comes out every week, so unless you have a compelling example that is current, I don't see the point of your argument unless you back it up with something.

     

    How will the internet become more expensive for everyone? Asserting that it will, doesn't make it so.

     

    The capitalism bit is nice but you really didn't address what krreagan wrote.

  • Reply 365 of 376
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member

    Yep, I meant straw man, thanks for catching that.

     

    Never did I say all governments should be overthrown.  Do you want the Internet controlled like it is in China?  (I provided a link so you would be happy) Handing them the keys to the kingdom is a big mistake.

     

    If it's no big deal for them to have this control, then why are they so eager to have it?  Do you really think they care about wether your Netflix is getting throttled by Comcast?

  • Reply 366 of 376
    pbrstreetgpbrstreetg Posts: 184member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    The behavior of the FCC regarding the rest of what it administers isn’t proof enough?




    When you say something like this, the burden of proof is on you; what has the FCC currently done to stifle innovation? This is pretty much the same when someone says, "I hate NIST!" Yeah, OK, because....

  • Reply 367 of 376
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    no reasoning or evidence for his assertions

     

    The behavior of the FCC regarding the rest of what it administers isn’t proof enough?




    Not really - if one applied the same slippery slope reasoning to their other activities then one would expect them to have done much worse than they have. The dire predictions being made here require that they have malicious intent and the connivance of future governments, which is obviously possible but really does represent a cynical and worst-case assumption. I still find it incongruous that people are claiming that a measure to ensure net neutrality is a precursor to some kind of censorship, and that a measure to prevent paid traffic prioritization will result in a slower internet at a higher cost to the consumer. @Marvin argues it well in his earlier posts.

     

    These rather extreme kinds of "predictions" get much more exposure with the increased availability of "alternative" news sources on the internet, but they almost never come to pass. They get forgotten in favor of the next big government conspiracy theory, and the cycle repeats. It reminds me of those ridiculous email scare stories that keep popping up at regular intervals long after snopes and others have exposed them as pure fiction.

  • Reply 368 of 376
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     

    Yep, I meant straw man, thanks for catching that.

     

    Never did I say all governments should be overthrown.  Do you want the Internet controlled like it is in China?  (I provided a link so you would be happy) Handing them the keys to the kingdom is a big mistake.

     

    If it's no big deal for them to have this control, then why are they so eager to have it?  Do you really think they care about wether your Netflix is getting throttled by Comcast?




    I agree that you did not say all governments should be overthrown, but that is the implication of your statement, because your only justification for your assertion seems to be that a government agency is imposing a regulation. No comment or argument over the merit of the regulation, per se, just that it is happening.

     

    China censors the internet by restricting site and network access. The US Government does not, and nor does the FCC. Both are on record as declaring that they do not believe that it should be censored. And if they wanted to censor it, then they could attempt to do so by legislation, which hopefully would fail. The proposed regulations do nothing significant to enhance the likelihood of censorship even if they wanted it. They have not used their authority to censor anything else either.  So "do I want the internet controlled like it is in China" is a loaded question, to which the answer, obviously, is no, but which does not follow from the proposal, even by implication. You do understand the meaning of, and my objection to the use of a slippery slope fallacy, I assume.

     

    I don't know what you mean about the proposal being no big deal. It's a huge deal because it prevents the ISPs from creating a multi-tier system in which they double-dip for payment. Netflix being throttled by Comcast is a huge deal, because of the precedent that it sets in allowing such an arrangement. Netflix already pays for its upload data rate and capacity from its backbone access provider, and consumers pay their ISPs for their download data rate and capacity. Now the individual ISPs get to squeeze extra money out of Netflix by holding their content hostage? How is that remotely good for the internet? This proposal makes it the FCCs job to care about this stuff, because someone needs to.

  • Reply 369 of 376
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,560moderator
    razorpit wrote: »
    Guess you never heard of the fairness doctrine?  The FCC is still kicking themselves for letting that one get away.  I'm sure they won't let that happen again with the Internet...

    As that link shows, different outlets are treated differently:

    "However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):

    “Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”

    This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors."

    Very few people could run an advert during prime-time television for example, so the avenue for speech is only open to people with lots of money and so they have regulations over what people can say. If it was unregulated, the Koch brothers could run ads during the Superbowl that just say "Obama's a dick" repeatedly. On the internet, it's a level playing field and people want it to stay that way.

    The government tries to maintain and promote competition where the free market tries to stifle it. The free market wanted to put in place an anti-competitive system that allowed bigger internet players (billionaires) to get better deployment service to customers than startups. The government asked the public and the public resoundingly said for them to stop acting in the interests of billionaires and start acting for the people they're supposed to represent, so they did.

    The cable networks were happy with the Comcast merger stifling competition - they even said in their defense that it was ok because there was so little competition that the merger wouldn't make it worse than it already was as each company was effectively a monopoly in their respective locations. The government voted to expand municipal broadband, which allows Google and possibly others to expand fiber deployment, increasing competition.
    razorpit wrote:
    Do you want the Internet controlled like it is in China?

    The internet is partially controlled like it is in China. Content is removed from the internet all the time. China just had different guidelines over what should be removed and they control the service providers.

    "No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:

    Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
    Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
    Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
    Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
    Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
    Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
    Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
    Injuring the reputation of state organizations;
    Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations."

    Western countries go easier on speech and focus more on drugs, firearms, botnets, porn, fraud, identity theft:

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber

    but hate speech and threats of violence are prosecuted. Just from a few days ago:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/25/us/new-york-terror-plot/

    "In the case against the three Brooklyn men, court documents said two of them posted parts of their plans on an Uzbek-language website, believing that the communications would be harder to trace... In a written statement in the Uzbek language, Juraboev allegedly speaks of killing Obama for "Allah" but notes he doesn't have the means to do it."

    The net neutrality laws are intended to keep things as they currently are and prevent the internet turning into an anti-competitive environment.
  • Reply 370 of 376
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     

    China censors the internet by restricting site and network access. The US Government does not, and nor does the FCC. Both are on record as declaring that they do not believe that it should be censored. And if they wanted to censor it, then they could attempt to do so by legislation, which hopefully would fail. The proposed regulations do nothing significant to enhance the likelihood of censorship even if they wanted it. They have not used their authority to censor anything else either.  So "do I want the internet controlled like it is in China" is a loaded question, to which the answer, obviously, is no, but which does not follow from the proposal, even by implication. You do understand the meaning of, and my objection to the use of a slippery slope fallacy, I assume.

     

    I don't know what you mean about the proposal being no big deal. It's a huge deal because it prevents the ISPs from creating a multi-tier system in which they double-dip for payment. Netflix being throttled by Comcast is a huge deal, because of the precedent that it sets in allowing such an arrangement. Netflix already pays for its upload data rate and capacity from its backbone access provider, and consumers pay their ISPs for their download data rate and capacity. Now the individual ISPs get to squeeze extra money out of Netflix by holding their content hostage? How is that remotely good for the internet? This proposal makes it the FCCs job to care about this stuff, because someone needs to.


    The FCC has mentioned several things that they said they "can do"under this ruling  but won't.  You trust language like that?  Regulators regulate that is their job.  It's only a matter of time before those words are either forgotten or "misinterpreted" by we the people.    For me to have a HAM radio license I have to abide by the FCC's rules (and pay a fee), TV and radio stations have similar restrictions.  You think similar restrictions won't transcend to the Internet?

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    As that link shows, different outlets are treated differently:



    "However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):



    “Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”



    This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can theoretically face an unlimited number of competitors."



    Very few people could run an advert during prime-time television for example, so the avenue for speech is only open to people with lots of money and so they have regulations over what people can say. If it was unregulated, the Koch brothers could run ads during the Superbowl that just say "Obama's a dick" repeatedly. On the internet, it's a level playing field and people want it to stay that way.



    The government tries to maintain and promote competition where the free market tries to stifle it. The free market wanted to put in place an anti-competitive system that allowed bigger internet players (billionaires) to get better deployment service to customers than startups. The government asked the public and the public resoundingly said for them to stop acting in the interests of billionaires and start acting for the people they're supposed to represent, so they did.



    The cable networks were happy with the Comcast merger stifling competition - they even said in their defense that it was ok because there was so little competition that the merger wouldn't make it worse than it already was as each company was effectively a monopoly in their respective locations. The government voted to expand municipal broadband, which allows Google and possibly others to expand fiber deployment, increasing competition.

    The internet is partially controlled like it is in China. Content is removed from the internet all the time. China just had different guidelines over what should be removed and they control the service providers.



    "No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:



    Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;

    Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;

    Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;

    Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;

    Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;

    Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;

    Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;

    Injuring the reputation of state organizations;

    Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations."



    Western countries go easier on speech and focus more on drugs, firearms, botnets, porn, fraud, identity theft:



    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber



    but hate speech and threats of violence are prosecuted. Just from a few days ago:



    http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/25/us/new-york-terror-plot/



    "In the case against the three Brooklyn men, court documents said two of them posted parts of their plans on an Uzbek-language website, believing that the communications would be harder to trace... In a written statement in the Uzbek language, Juraboev allegedly speaks of killing Obama for "Allah" but notes he doesn't have the means to do it."



    The net neutrality laws are intended to keep things as they currently are and prevent the internet turning into an anti-competitive environment.

    To compare the regulations we have on the Internet to China is like saying I want to compare this orange to a steamroller.  

     

    This is a different era.  Look at how the IRS was recently used as a tool to stifle free speech.  Again, the FCC stated they have the power to regulate whatever and however they wish "but won't". How long do you think that will last? 

     

    We see stories with regularity about how the government wants back doors in to every system/network, the spoofing of cell towers, etc.  This guarantees all that will happen.  Why?  Because the government now regulates it!  You want to play?  You play by their rules.   Personally I think we've done pretty well up to this point without their regulation.  

     

    I'm not going to change your mind and I hope I'm wrong with where this is headed.  If I am I'll be the first to say you were right.  However if I am right you'll never get to hear me say I told you so...

  • Reply 371 of 376
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

     

    China censors the internet by restricting site and network access. The US Government does not, and nor does the FCC. Both are on record as declaring that they do not believe that it should be censored. And if they wanted to censor it, then they could attempt to do so by legislation, which hopefully would fail. The proposed regulations do nothing significant to enhance the likelihood of censorship even if they wanted it. They have not used their authority to censor anything else either.  So "do I want the internet controlled like it is in China" is a loaded question, to which the answer, obviously, is no, but which does not follow from the proposal, even by implication. You do understand the meaning of, and my objection to the use of a slippery slope fallacy, I assume.

     

    I don't know what you mean about the proposal being no big deal. It's a huge deal because it prevents the ISPs from creating a multi-tier system in which they double-dip for payment. Netflix being throttled by Comcast is a huge deal, because of the precedent that it sets in allowing such an arrangement. Netflix already pays for its upload data rate and capacity from its backbone access provider, and consumers pay their ISPs for their download data rate and capacity. Now the individual ISPs get to squeeze extra money out of Netflix by holding their content hostage? How is that remotely good for the internet? This proposal makes it the FCCs job to care about this stuff, because someone needs to.


     

    The FCC has mentioned several things that they said they "can do"under this ruling  but won't.  You trust language like that?  Regulators regulate that is their job.  It's only a matter of time before those words are either forgotten or "misinterpreted" by we the people.    For me to have a HAM radio license I have to abide by the FCC's rules (and pay a fee), TV and radio stations have similar restrictions.  You think similar restrictions won't transcend to the Internet?


     

    Yes I trust that language, but I also recognize that we have an elected government to keep them in check if they attempt to go to far. There are all kinds of things the FCC could do, in theory, but haven't. Radio licenses are required to broadcast on restricted frequencies -  a reasonable requirement implemented everywhere to allow frequency coordination and prevent chaos. You don't need a license to listen to radio, or watch television. You don't need a license for telephone service (landline or cellular). Why do you therefore imagine that it will be different for internet access? Just because they could (even though I cannot imagine any administration would allow them to) is not a reasonable argument.

     

    This simply illustrates the gulf between our thinking. You assume that the worst possible outcome will inevitably happen, even though history shows that it generally doesn't. You assume here that the FCC will go rogue and that Congress will do nothing to stop them, even though they have no history of such actions. I get the impression that you are in the category of those who see all governments as malevolent oppressors over which the oppressed populace have no control, and are ready to accept any and all predictions of totalitarianism. Hence my earlier comment that the logical extension of your position is that all government must be resisted. But I see no logical path at all to your premise, which is not supported by history in the US (or any other democracy), and resorting to holding up China (with a vastly different history, culture and system of government) as evidence of what will happen is really clutching at straws.

  • Reply 372 of 376
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Not really 

     

    Well, you’ve made that bed. Enjoy sleeping in it.

     

    …obviously possible but really does represent a cynical and worst-case assumption.


     

    YEAH, IT’S NOT LIKE WORST-CASE SCENARIOS ARE THE NORM FOR THIS SORT OF THING. :no: 

     

    Then again, you consider the contents of the bill itself to be a conspiracy theory, so I don’t know what anyone would expect at this point.

  • Reply 373 of 376
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    Not really 

     

    Well, you’ve made that bed. Enjoy sleeping in it.

     

    …obviously possible but really does represent a cynical and worst-case assumption.


     

    YEAH, IT’S NOT LIKE WORST-CASE SCENARIOS ARE THE NORM FOR THIS SORT OF THING. :no: 

     

    Then again, you consider the contents of the bill itself to be a conspiracy theory, so I don’t know what anyone would expect at this point.


     

    But that was my point - these worst-case scenarios are floated nearly every time a regulation is proposed these days, and even, sometimes, when one isn't, but never actually transpire. Those outcomes are not the norm. Do you have any examples?

     

    Assuming that you are talking about the proposal, I don't understand your last sentence.

  • Reply 374 of 376
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    worst-case scenarios are floated nearly every time a regulation is proposed these days, and even, sometimes, when one isnt, but never actually transpire. Those outcomes are not the norm. Do you have any examples?


     

    Patriot Act.

  • Reply 375 of 376
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

    worst-case scenarios are floated nearly every time a regulation is proposed these days, and even, sometimes, when one isnt, but never actually transpire. Those outcomes are not the norm. Do you have any examples?


     

    Patriot Act.




    OK - fair enough. There are significant differences though. That act, as imperfect as it may be, was overwhelmingly passed by both houses of the elected legislature in response to an unprecedented situation, and I would argue that it was passed with good intentions. One can argue about whether or how much the lack of subsequent terrorist attacks in the US is due to the act, but it had broad support at the time, and I suspect that there would have been a much worse backlash if nothing had been done.

     

    Either way, the Patriot Act unquestionably eroded some rights, whereas the primary purpose of the FCC proposal is to protect consumer rights in the form of an open internet. I still haven't heard anyone describe what, specifically, is bad about the proposal other than the vague, unsupported assertions that it will lead to higher costs and/or destroy the internet.

Sign In or Register to comment.