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

1246719

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by krreagan View Postvaccine deniers, climate deniers,



    People deny there's a climate? Really? I don't think people deny that vaccines exist either.

  • Reply 62 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     

     

    Now the government can prevent your freedom of speech. Just like television networks, your ISP can be fined if you type the word **** in this forum. Your criticism of Al Sharpton could be labeled hate speech and banned. 


     

    Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.

    As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.

  • Reply 63 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

     

     

    Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.

    As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.


  • Reply 64 of 376
    davendaven Posts: 648member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     

     

    Now the government can prevent your freedom of speech. Just like television networks, your ISP can be fined if you type the word **** in this forum. Your criticism of Al Sharpton could be labeled hate speech and banned. 




    Wrong. Fines for the *** word only apply to publicly licensed airwaves, i.e. broadcast radio and TV. The same standards to not apply to cable networks or satellite TV. Turn off Fox sometime and get some really fair and balanced information. Not the O'Really factor stuff.

  • Reply 65 of 376
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member

    I think the folks here predicting doom may have their vision clouded by politics.

     

    From the wikipedia entry:

     

    Quote:

    Proponents of net neutrality include consumer advocates, human rights organizations such as Article 19, online companies and some technology companies. Many major Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality [including] Yahoo!, Vonage, eBay, Amazon, IAC/InterActiveCorp. Microsoft, [and Apple].

     

    Opposition includes the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Ayn Rand Institute. Opponents of net neutrality include hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries, including major telecommunications providers, such as AT&T.

     

    Individuals who support net neutrality include Tim Berners-Lee [the "father" of the world wide web], Vinton Cerf [the "father" of the internet], Lawrence Lessig, Robert W. McChesney, Steve Wozniak, Susan P. Crawford, Ben Scott, David Reed, and U.S. President Barack Obama.



     

    I suspect that most of the opposition here is related to that last guy (or possibly, financial relationships to the folks in the middle paragraph).

     

    ...which maybe I can understand, because if Tim Berners-Lee and Vinton Cerf are for it, I don't feel too worried about the details- I'll stand with those guys.

  • Reply 66 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     




    More flippant responses from those that are against the FCC ruling. 

  • Reply 67 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

     



    More flippant responses from those that are against the FCC ruling. 




    Actually, I have quite a few Native American ancestors, so it's not as flippant as you would like to believe.

  • Reply 68 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     

    I think the folks here predicting doom may have their vision clouded by politics.

     

     

    I suspect that most of the opposition here is related to that last guy (or possibly, financial relationships to the folks in the middle paragraph).

     

    ...which maybe I can understand, because if Tim Berners-Lee and Vinton Cerf are for it, I don't feel too worried about the details- I'll stand with those guys.


     

    I think somebody here doesn't understand that name calling (ad hominem attack) is known to be an invalid substitute for an actual argument.

     

    Or would you prefer that I answer in kind?

  • Reply 69 of 376
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,869moderator
    mubaili wrote: »
    so content providers cannot pay for fast lane but consumer can pay for fast access? I am confused.

    The former is anti-competitive, the latter isn't.
    I find a certain degree of irony in entrusting the FCC to uphold freedom of speech on the internet.

    This FCC?:


    [VIDEO]

    echosonic wrote:
    FCC shuts down any website that FCC does not approve of, to shift according to which political party is in power.

    This already happens y'know, it's just not the FCC doing it:

    http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2014/dozens-of-online-dark-markets-seized-pursuant-to-forfeiture-complaint-filed-in-manhattan-federal-court-in-conjunction-with-the-arrest-of-the-operator-of-silk-road-2.0
    echosonic wrote:
    FCC begins enacting regulations that control what you can and can not say on the internet.

    Just like how they control what you can and can't say over the telephone?
    jetlaw wrote:
    Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.

    Very few people who make statements like this expand on the statement with details of what the consequences would be.

    Some of the consequences will be that ISPs won't be able to throttle particular content down to 1/10th of the speed you pay for. This might impact the overall network but they have tiered bandwidth speeds anyway so people who struggle on a lower connection will have to pay more. Opening up the broadband access will increase competition so that will help sort out the pricing issue.

    Why not just try it and see what happens and if everyone ends up better off, what's the worst that would happen? People would just have to say 'thanks Obama' and actually mean it. That can't be too hard. If the world comes to an end or something else ridiculous then just organise a protest using twitte... no that would be regulated, Faceboo... no that would be regulated. Google Plu... no nobody uses that, well snail mail. Protest it by mail and the damage will be undone.
  • Reply 70 of 376
    mrshowmrshow Posts: 161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

     

     

    I think somebody here doesn't understand that name calling (ad hominem attack) is known to be an invalid substitute for an actual argument.

     

    Or would you prefer that I answer in kind?




    I think what we'd all prefer is for the people against this ruling to provide real arguments with evidence. The side that is in favor of this ruling has cited many sources on why it, the ruling, is a good thing for the public at large. 

  • Reply 71 of 376
    The Republican Party is not against this.. As this article seems to pose. Anyways, this is a win. The big Internet corporations had a lot of power, and could have still had it. Once they started flexing their muscle and slowing down sites that don't pay them a fee, the people spoke up. You can't push the American people too far, we fight back. Some people don't like the fcc being involved, but you're always going to have some govt. Believe it or not, we need some govt, the founding fathers tried to create a country with too little govt and it backfired, they recreated the country under the constitution to give the govt more power. There will always be a balancing act, with people saying we need more and we need less, that's a good thing The best news here is that the Internet providers can't charge you and I to make our sites in the future, or any other cool ideas you have. Now, we all have the same opportunity to change the Internet that Netflix and Yahoo and any other success story did!
  • Reply 72 of 376
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

     

     

    I think somebody here doesn't understand that name calling (ad hominem attack) is known to be an invalid substitute for an actual argument.

     

    Or would you prefer that I answer in kind?




    I'm sorry...what name did I call you?

  • Reply 73 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MrShow View Post

     



    I think what we'd all prefer is for the people against this ruling to provide real arguments with evidence. The side that is in favor of this ruling has cited many sources on why it, the ruling, is a good thing for the public at large. 




    And yet, not a single person has responded to my real arguments. Other real arguments made by others here have been equally ignored or gainsaid. (For example, the government's proven use of the IRS to suppress political enemies, NSA spying, etc.)

     

    Reverting to name calling indicates that there is no counter-argument.

  • Reply 74 of 376
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     



    I'm sorry...what name did I call you?




    A paid shill incapable of thinking for myself.

  • Reply 75 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

     



    Bandwidth has a cost. Bad things always happen when you attempt to divorce cost from price.




    I don't quite see it that way.  I believe this is more about ensuring ISPs cannot double charge content providers.  If I as a consumer pay for 50GB then I should be free to access the internet as I wish including (just for an example) say Netflix.  ISP's charing NetFlix more to use the bandwidth I have already paid for MEANS NetFlix will have to increase their prices to offset that cost (i.e. consumers will pay more) which means I end up paying twice for the same bandwidth.  It also means new businesses and startups will have a bigger barrier to get started.  Lastly, I don;t see why should ISP's want a share of the profit made by Netflix's (and all other successful internet service providers') success.

  • Reply 76 of 376
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

     



    A paid shill incapable of thinking for myself.


     

    I'm sorry, but I said nothing of the sort.

  • Reply 77 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     

     

    I'm sorry, but I said nothing of the sort.




    "I suspect that most of the opposition here is related to that last guy (or possibly, financial relationships to the folks in the middle paragraph)."

     

    This statement disallows principled objections leaving only "incapable of thinking," and "financial relationships" = paid shill.

     

    You absolutely said that. Now own it.

  • Reply 78 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

     



    Please post your firm's contact information so I can avoid hiring you. I like my attorneys to be objective and not blinded by hate. From your rants, it appears that you are neither.




    "Blinded by hate?"  If ever there was a partisan, lying, propagandic, libelous, sycophantic post, this is it.

  • Reply 79 of 376
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,595member
    jetlaw wrote: »
    Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.

    ROFLOL - so we are supposed to listen to you because you are an attorney????
  • Reply 80 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mystigo View Post

     

    Wait. Did we win? I am genuinely astonished. I am reading this correctly am I not? The corporations lost and we won? I need to sit down somewhere quietly and digest this.




    Yes, we actually won!

     

    The American people won for once!

     

    Freedom on the internet remains a reality!

Sign In or Register to comment.