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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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????
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.
Comments
People deny there's a climate? Really? I don't think people deny that vaccines exist either.
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.
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.
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.
I think the folks here predicting doom may have their vision clouded by politics.
From the wikipedia entry:
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.
More flippant responses from those that are against the FCC ruling.
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.
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?
The former is anti-competitive, the latter isn't.
This FCC?:
[VIDEO]
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
Just like how they control what you can and can't say over the telephone?
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm sorry...what name did I call you?
A paid shill incapable of thinking for myself.
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.
A paid shill incapable of thinking for myself.
I'm sorry, but I said nothing of the sort.
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.
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.
ROFLOL - so we are supposed to listen to you because you are an attorney????
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!