The telephone isn't a public forum, its a private communication.
People still have to manually choose to visit websites, they aren't all being broadcast to you like TV and people are prosecuted for what they say online already:
"a Pennsylvania man found guilty of making threatening statements to his estranged wife, law enforcement officers and others on Facebook after his wife left him. His Facebook posts, written in the form of rap lyrics, talked about killing his wife, knifing an female FBI agent and shooting schoolchildren."
Sure, "just try it and see", because if it doesn't work out Government always gives power back once its been taken. Like they stop collecting tolls and taxes once they have the money they need.
Regulations can be removed yes. You should now be able to sodomise another person in every state. Maybe give Louisiana some cooling off time though:
Let's say that somehow they manage to censor access to certain websites like a blacklist at the ISP level. A proxy server bypasses it so it's ineffective. As for website content, there's over 600 million websites, they don't have the capacity to police them all and it would be wasted effort.
"The main changes for broadband providers are as follows:
- Broadband access is being reclassified as a telecommunications service, meaning it will be subject to much heavier regulation
- Broadband providers cannot block or speed up connections for a fee
- Internet providers cannot strike deals with content firms, known as paid prioritisation, for smoother delivery of traffic to consumers
- Interconnection deals, where content companies pay broadband providers to connect to their networks, will also be regulated
- Firms which feel that unjust fees have been levied can complain to the FCC. Each one will be dealt with on a case by case basis
- All of the rules will also apply to mobile providers as well as fixed line providers
- The FCC won't apply some sections of the new rules, including price controls"
If they made an internet tax, that would be a good thing as they'd have tax revenue to invest in building a shared fiber infrastructure and the tax would be offset by having more companies competing on the same lines.
"Chairman Tom Wheeler said that broadband providers have the technical ability and financial incentive to impose restrictions on the Internet. Wheeler said further:
The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think."
"Interestingly, things could get easier for Google Fiber if the FCC votes to reclassify broadband services as utilities on Thursday — if reclassified under Title II, Google Fiber would have the same access to utility poles and other key infrastructure currently enjoyed by Comcast, AT&T and other big-name ISPs. Whether that actually speeds things up for Google Fiber deployments, however, is anyone’s guess."
I can't agree with you here at all, this will be very bad for freedom.
What freedom is being taken away? When you say "will be" is that some speculative worst case scenario predicting the inevitable collapse of democracy? If the public does not like the law they can repeal it.
Yes! A win for freedom and ensuring a chance of success by future tech startups.
Far from it. This will end up putting Hugh expenses I front of startups. I would imagine that companies will have to start selling access by the bit giving a flat rate to all customers. It is truly a stupid move by the government. Every business in the world discounts for volume why shouldn't mass users of bandwidth be able to pay for the bandwidth they need.
Beyond that I can see all sorts of problems with access now. Your next OS download will have to compete for bandwidth with every porn site start up trying to make a quick buck.
Not in this instance, I'm talking about the freedom of comapnies like Apple or Netflix to be able to buy the bandwidth they need and be assured that they get that bandwidth when they need it. It is a very serious issue.
Take another look at this from the perspective of other services Apple buys. It is rumored that they buy up a significant amount of air freight capacity to assure a smooth iPhone launch each year. Effectively they are paying for a physical form of "bandwidth" that assures them that an iPhine launch goes well.
With this non sense Apple could launch a new OS and not have any assurance that it's customers would be able to download the update in a timely manner. Band width will always be finite even with all of the technological advances, demand just keeps increasing with advancements elsewhere.
By the way im not completely agianst reform here! I really beleive that competition would help and to deliver that we need to address the cosy relationship providers have with communities. Exclusive contracts to provide data services to a community must go.
What's to stop the FCC from banning certain types of data?
Really? Gun control proponents can't even get a ban on assault weapons reinstated and you think that somehow the FCC would be able to ban certain data types? Don't be absurd. It doesn't advance your point of view.
I knew you were odd, but never realized you were deranged.
Enjoy the next two years.
Folks should keep in mind that the "unregulated internet' we have had so far, has delivered to us some of the crappiest, lowest bandwidth, most expensive internet access in the developed world.
It’s almost as though we’re the third largest country on Earth or something. It’s almost as though the laws on the books protecting people from misuse of the system AREN’T BEING ENFORCED. It’s almost as though enforcing them would have fixed that…
I can go on.
Meanwhile it's been very profitable for the telcos. No wonder they hate so much even the slightest regulation.
And that explains why they absolutely love this legislation (which they can see and you cannot), too. Because it’s good for… the… people? Hmm.
Deregulation: What would a pro football game look like if we got rid of the referees?
What would a pro football game look like if the referees told each team what play they could run?
Originally Posted by Marvin
You're going all Padme on us:
She wasn’t wrong. Neither am I.
Originally Posted by DaveN
…ban certain data types?
Wait, how do you not see the fundamental difference in banning a physical object vs. banning something that by definition now has to go through government-regulated channels?
So will we need to obtain a license from the FCC to create a new website? Seems that’s the way things are going.
Where does it say this?
In any event, your analogy is flawed.
Regulating the provider of a utility (e.g., your electricity provider) is very different from regulating the consumer of a utility (e.g., a business or a household consuming electricity). Does your government tell you whether and when you can use a dishwasher?
Every business in the world discounts for volume why shouldn't mass users of bandwidth be able to pay for the bandwidth they need.
Exactly. This how it should be. In fact I would go so far as to say that everyone should pay by the bit, with discount pricing tiers. Unfortunately bandwidth hogs have ruined unlimited data plans offered by broadband providers.
You should never have to pay the second or third network peer for data. The requesters of that data should pay. The provider of the data should never have pay once they have paid their primary provider. Networks on the route to the requester should accept all traffic to the last hop unless it is an attack.
The "neutral" rules you happen to like under a president you favor will now become the intrusive, freedom violating rules under a president you disfavor.
Seriously, when, where, how, and under what circumstances has something like this come to pass in the past?
Not in this instance, I'm talking about the freedom of comapnies like Apple or Netflix to be able to buy the bandwidth they need and be assured that they get that bandwidth when they need it. It is a very serious issue.
Take another look at this from the perspective of other services Apple buys. It is rumored that they buy up a significant amount of air freight capacity to assure a smooth iPhone launch each year. Effectively they are paying for a physical form of "bandwidth" that assures them that an iPhine launch goes well.
With this non sense Apple could launch a new OS and not have any assurance that it's customers would be able to download the update in a timely manner. Band width will always be finite even with all of the technological advances, demand just keeps increasing with advancements elsewhere.
By the way im not completely agianst reform here! I really beleive that competition would help and to deliver that we need to address the cosy relationship providers have with communities. Exclusive contracts to provide data services to a community must go.
This ruling doesn't change how the internet has been running all along. It doesn't prevent companies such as Apple from buying bigger pipes, OC3 or whatever the high speed lines are now.
Comments
Liquor in the front, and poker in the rear.
You're going all Padme on us:
[VIDEO]
People still have to manually choose to visit websites, they aren't all being broadcast to you like TV and people are prosecuted for what they say online already:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/01/us-usa-court-socialmedia-idUSKCN0JF2W120141201
"a Pennsylvania man found guilty of making threatening statements to his estranged wife, law enforcement officers and others on Facebook after his wife left him. His Facebook posts, written in the form of rap lyrics, talked about killing his wife, knifing an female FBI agent and shooting schoolchildren."
Regulations can be removed yes. You should now be able to sodomise another person in every state. Maybe give Louisiana some cooling off time though:
http://www.advocate.com/crime/2015/02/22/louisiana-men-arrested-under-unconstitutional-sodomy-law
Net neutrality is an anti-sodomy law against the cable companies.
Certain data is banned already like extreme porn, drugs, firearms, copyright infringing material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States
Let's say that somehow they manage to censor access to certain websites like a blacklist at the ISP level. A proxy server bypasses it so it's ineffective. As for website content, there's over 600 million websites, they don't have the capacity to police them all and it would be wasted effort.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31638528
"The main changes for broadband providers are as follows:
- Broadband access is being reclassified as a telecommunications service, meaning it will be subject to much heavier regulation
- Broadband providers cannot block or speed up connections for a fee
- Internet providers cannot strike deals with content firms, known as paid prioritisation, for smoother delivery of traffic to consumers
- Interconnection deals, where content companies pay broadband providers to connect to their networks, will also be regulated
- Firms which feel that unjust fees have been levied can complain to the FCC. Each one will be dealt with on a case by case basis
- All of the rules will also apply to mobile providers as well as fixed line providers
- The FCC won't apply some sections of the new rules, including price controls"
If they made an internet tax, that would be a good thing as they'd have tax revenue to invest in building a shared fiber infrastructure and the tax would be offset by having more companies competing on the same lines.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/
"Chairman Tom Wheeler said that broadband providers have the technical ability and financial incentive to impose restrictions on the Internet. Wheeler said further:
The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think."
I can't agree with you here at all, this will be very bad for freedom.
"Interestingly, things could get easier for Google Fiber if the FCC votes to reclassify broadband services as utilities on Thursday — if reclassified under Title II, Google Fiber would have the same access to utility poles and other key infrastructure currently enjoyed by Comcast, AT&T and other big-name ISPs. Whether that actually speeds things up for Google Fiber deployments, however, is anyone’s guess."
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/google-fiber-chilling-threat-cities-things-way-enjoy-133057390.html
I can't agree with you here at all, this will be very bad for freedom.
What freedom is being taken away? When you say "will be" is that some speculative worst case scenario predicting the inevitable collapse of democracy? If the public does not like the law they can repeal it.
Far from it. This will end up putting Hugh expenses I front of startups. I would imagine that companies will have to start selling access by the bit giving a flat rate to all customers. It is truly a stupid move by the government. Every business in the world discounts for volume why shouldn't mass users of bandwidth be able to pay for the bandwidth they need.
Beyond that I can see all sorts of problems with access now. Your next OS download will have to compete for bandwidth with every porn site start up trying to make a quick buck.
It takes away the freedom to buy what you need.
You mean the need to not be illegally throttled?
Examples.
Obama is hellbent on turning USA into ISIS.
America is becoming communist China; China is becoming America.
Take another look at this from the perspective of other services Apple buys. It is rumored that they buy up a significant amount of air freight capacity to assure a smooth iPhone launch each year. Effectively they are paying for a physical form of "bandwidth" that assures them that an iPhine launch goes well.
With this non sense Apple could launch a new OS and not have any assurance that it's customers would be able to download the update in a timely manner. Band width will always be finite even with all of the technological advances, demand just keeps increasing with advancements elsewhere.
By the way im not completely agianst reform here! I really beleive that competition would help and to deliver that we need to address the cosy relationship providers have with communities. Exclusive contracts to provide data services to a community must go.
Sure thing UK.
What an abysmal outcome this is.
Obama is hellbent on turning USA into ISIS.
America is becoming communist China; China is becoming America.
Ummmm then move to China. That seems to be your logic! Go ahead I'll wave good bye!!
Really? Gun control proponents can't even get a ban on assault weapons reinstated and you think that somehow the FCC would be able to ban certain data types? Don't be absurd. It doesn't advance your point of view.
Enjoy the next two years.
It’s almost as though we’re the third largest country on Earth or something. It’s almost as though the laws on the books protecting people from misuse of the system AREN’T BEING ENFORCED. It’s almost as though enforcing them would have fixed that…
I can go on.
And that explains why they absolutely love this legislation (which they can see and you cannot), too. Because it’s good for… the… people? Hmm.
What would a pro football game look like if the referees told each team what play they could run?
She wasn’t wrong. Neither am I.
Wait, how do you not see the fundamental difference in banning a physical object vs. banning something that by definition now has to go through government-regulated channels?
So will we need to obtain a license from the FCC to create a new website? Seems that’s the way things are going.
Where does it say this?
In any event, your analogy is flawed.
Regulating the provider of a utility (e.g., your electricity provider) is very different from regulating the consumer of a utility (e.g., a business or a household consuming electricity). Does your government tell you whether and when you can use a dishwasher?
Every business in the world discounts for volume why shouldn't mass users of bandwidth be able to pay for the bandwidth they need.
Exactly. This how it should be. In fact I would go so far as to say that everyone should pay by the bit, with discount pricing tiers. Unfortunately bandwidth hogs have ruined unlimited data plans offered by broadband providers.
You should never have to pay the second or third network peer for data. The requesters of that data should pay. The provider of the data should never have pay once they have paid their primary provider. Networks on the route to the requester should accept all traffic to the last hop unless it is an attack.
The "neutral" rules you happen to like under a president you favor will now become the intrusive, freedom violating rules under a president you disfavor.
Seriously, when, where, how, and under what circumstances has something like this come to pass in the past?
Not in this instance, I'm talking about the freedom of comapnies like Apple or Netflix to be able to buy the bandwidth they need and be assured that they get that bandwidth when they need it. It is a very serious issue.
Take another look at this from the perspective of other services Apple buys. It is rumored that they buy up a significant amount of air freight capacity to assure a smooth iPhone launch each year. Effectively they are paying for a physical form of "bandwidth" that assures them that an iPhine launch goes well.
With this non sense Apple could launch a new OS and not have any assurance that it's customers would be able to download the update in a timely manner. Band width will always be finite even with all of the technological advances, demand just keeps increasing with advancements elsewhere.
By the way im not completely agianst reform here! I really beleive that competition would help and to deliver that we need to address the cosy relationship providers have with communities. Exclusive contracts to provide data services to a community must go.
This ruling doesn't change how the internet has been running all along. It doesn't prevent companies such as Apple from buying bigger pipes, OC3 or whatever the high speed lines are now.
Complete nonsense. The extra costs will be passed onto taxpayers no matter how you look at it.
So, does you cable company swallow these costs? Why or why not?
If your answer is "no," do you think that lack of competition may have something to do with it?