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

11315171819

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 376
    65c81665c816 Posts: 136member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    So this is how the Internet dies, then. Well, we had a good run. I guess.

     

    Pro tip: when the people who are legally required to work for you refuse to show you the contents of the laws by which you’ll be forced to abide, they are not working for you.


    http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet



    Does that help?  Or are you looking for the actual Title II law itself?

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201

     

    Exactly which content of what law are you missing?

  • Reply 282 of 376
    65c81665c816 Posts: 136member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    If you want your internet to slow to a crawl, yes.

    Would you mind explaining why this would happen?  Please make sure it's founded in facts and logic though.

  • Reply 283 of 376
    The Wall Street Journal:

    "Feb. 26, 2015 7:54 p.m. ET
    The Federal Communications Commission’s decision Thursday to regulate the Internet as a public utility is a depressing moment for American innovation and economic liberty. The FCC is grabbing political control over a vibrant market that until now has been driven by inventors and consumers. Welcome to the Obamanet.

    President Obama demanded this result in a November speech, and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and Democrats Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel have now dutifully voted to apply last century’s monopoly telephone rules to Internet service providers. They have in the process made a mockery of the agency’s supposed independence.

    The rules are ostensibly to prevent Internet companies from blocking customer access to particular websites or slowing down service. But the FCC has presented no evidence that this is occurring, so the power grab is being justified by some theoretical future harm.

    By the way, the FCC hasn’t released the text it has now approved as a final rule, which according to dissenting Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai runs to more than 300 pages. It’s not clear when the public will be permitted to see what Washington has done, and the normal comment period has been bypassed on a plan that is vastly different than what Mr. Wheeler has previously proposed."

    Just Google: "Welcome To The Obamanet"
  • Reply 284 of 376
    davendaven Posts: 693member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by christomax View Post

     

     

    To be fair, you didn't really give any substance to your opinion.  As such, it's just a appeal to authority...and that's it. 




    Plus it is a self-professed and unsubstantiated authority. 

  • Reply 285 of 376
    65c816 wrote: »
    http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet


    Does that help?  Or are you looking for the actual Title II law itself?
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201

    Exactly which content of what law are you missing?

    How about you provide a link to the text of the actual 300 page FCC ruling? Oh, that's right...it's not available. This whole thing is so reminiscent of Obamacare it's amazing. Somewhere Nancy Pelosi must be cackling with glee.
  • Reply 286 of 376
    davendaven Posts: 693member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    The Wall Street Journal:



    "Feb. 26, 2015 7:54 p.m. ET

    The Federal Communications Commission’s decision Thursday to regulate the Internet as a public utility is a depressing moment for American innovation and economic liberty. 

     

    Did you expect an honest analysis from a Rupert Murdoch company? From Wikipedia "It (Wall Street Journal) is published 6 days a week in New York City by Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corp...)

  • Reply 287 of 376
    daven wrote: »
    Did you expect an honest analysis from a Rupert Murdoch company? From Wikipedia "It (Wall Street Journal) is published 6 days a week in New York City by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_&_Company" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Dow Jones & Company">Dow Jones & Company</a>
    , a division of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="News Corp">News Corp</a>
    ...)

    In what way is the author's opinion de facto invalid because of Rulert Murdoch? Does that mean if Rudy Giuliani is published in the New York Times you automatically agree with him (based on the theory that you may dislike Giuliani and favor the NYT)? Did you actually read the commentary?
  • Reply 288 of 376
    davendaven Posts: 693member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    In what way is the author's opinion de facto invalid because of Rulert Murdoch? Does that mean if Rudy Giuliani is published in the New York Times you automatically agree with him (based on the theory that you may dislike Giuliani and favor the NYT)? Did you actually read the commentary?



    I did read it and found it to be your typical Murdoch, Foxtard drivel.

  • Reply 289 of 376
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,271moderator
    Just Google: "Welcome To The Obamanet"

    There's the real issue.

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/6/7992215/net-neutrality-obamacare-for-the-internet-rush-limbaugh-rand-paul
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/12/10/verizon-actually-strong-net-neutrality-rules-wont-affect-our-network-investment/

    "The FCC said it’s not going to impose the kind of common carrier restrictions that apply to utilities like our telephone networks. As the fact sheet makes clear, it won’t attempt to regulate the rates that ISPs can charge and it won’t force them to lease access to competitors at a set price. In other words, it won’t turn them into dumb pipes.

    Hell, even Verizon, talking with investors behind closed doors, has admitted that this kind of strong net neutrality won’t hurt their business or reduce future investment. Similarly, Republican legislators recently introduced their alternative plan, and the striking thing is that is calls for the same changes: prohibiting blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. They just want Congress to be making that decision, not the FCC. Tim Wu, the man who coined the phrase "net neutrality", thinks their proposal is pretty good!

    So how to explain this dramatic reaction from Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits? It’s the same cynical, knee-jerk opposition that has defined the last six years of government. Whatever the president wants, they can’t stand. And even when it’s not Obama doing the deciding, they find a way to make it about him. "Chairman Wheeler's proposal to regulate the Internet as a public utility is not about net neutrality," said a statement from Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune. "It is a power grab for the federal government by the chairman of a supposedly independent agency who finally succumbed to the bully tactics of political activists and the president himself."

    By turning net neutrality into "Obamacare for the Internet" these alarmists have given themselves a political boogeyman, something they can trot out to scare voters and raise campaign dollars. But cries that the sky is falling on the future of the internet simply don’t match the facts on the ground."

    This idea of the internet grinding to a halt is not even possible by simply equalising the traffic and ISPs will still be allowed to offer tiered pricing so you can still get a 20Mbit/s package, a 50Mbit/s package etc, they just can't deny you what you're paying for based on the traffic. It specifically says no taxes too:

    http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet
  • Reply 290 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaveN View Post



    I did read it and found it to be your typical Murdoch, Foxtard drivel.


    Basically, it's a lot of whining from a bunch of sore losers. They voted, and NN won 3-2.

     

    The basic principles that have been adopted -- along with the assents and dissents of each of the five Commissioners -- can be found here: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet

     

    Of course there'll be more rule-making for the specifics.The rest amounts to a bunch of shrillness and hysteria.

     

    The most important thing to note is:  if people don't like it, the Congress can pass a bill to change it, and give us a new set of rules. After all, Republicans control both houses, don't they? The problem, however, is that they have no interest in working with this President (even though I disagree with him on  a number of issues, I don't see him doing anything so far other than what he promised he would do when he ran for his second term). The Congress, and the corporate monopolists, have had a chance to do something about this for years, but they arrogantly kept thumbing their nose at the people.

     

    Guess what: it's payback time.

  • Reply 291 of 376
    Marvin wrote: »
    There's the real issue.

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/6/7992215/net-neutrality-obamacare-for-the-internet-rush-limbaugh-rand-paul
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/12/10/verizon-actually-strong-net-neutrality-rules-wont-affect-our-network-investment/

    "The FCC said it’s not going to impose the kind of common carrier restrictions that apply to utilities like our telephone networks. As the fact sheet makes clear, it won’t attempt to regulate the rates that ISPs can charge and it won’t force them to lease access to competitors at a set price. In other words, it won’t turn them into dumb pipes.

    Hell, even Verizon, talking with investors behind closed doors, has admitted that this kind of strong net neutrality won’t hurt their business or reduce future investment. Similarly, Republican legislators recently introduced their alternative plan, and the striking thing is that is calls for the same changes: prohibiting blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. They just want Congress to be making that decision, not the FCC. Tim Wu, the man who coined the phrase "net neutrality", thinks their proposal is pretty good!

    So how to explain this dramatic reaction from Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits? It’s the same cynical, knee-jerk opposition that has defined the last six years of government. Whatever the president wants, they can’t stand. And even when it’s not Obama doing the deciding, they find a way to make it about him. "Chairman Wheeler's proposal to regulate the Internet as a public utility is not about net neutrality," said a statement from Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune. "It is a power grab for the federal government by the chairman of a supposedly independent agency who finally succumbed to the bully tactics of political activists and the president himself."

    By turning net neutrality into "Obamacare for the Internet" these alarmists have given themselves a political boogeyman, something they can trot out to scare voters and raise campaign dollars. But cries that the sky is falling on the future of the internet simply don’t match the facts on the ground."

    This idea of the internet grinding to a halt is not even possible by simply equalising the traffic and ISPs will still be allowed to offer tiered pricing so you can still get a 20Mbit/s package, a 50Mbit/s package etc, they just can't deny you what you're paying for based on the traffic. It specifically says no taxes too:

    http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet

    And yet the complete ruling is unavailable for anyone to dissect. Based on this administration's record, it is completely reasonable to adopt a hard line response until details are revealed. The ACA is pure trash and a malevolent and injurious expansion of government. Why expect anything less here?
  • Reply 292 of 376
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Marvin wrote: »
    Just Google: "Welcome To The Obamanet"

    There's the real issue.

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/6/7992215/net-neutrality-obamacare-for-the-internet-rush-limbaugh-rand-paul
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/12/10/verizon-actually-strong-net-neutrality-rules-wont-affect-our-network-investment/

    "The FCC said it’s not going to impose the kind of common carrier restrictions that apply to utilities like our telephone networks. As the fact sheet makes clear, it won’t attempt to regulate the rates that ISPs can charge and it won’t force them to lease access to competitors at a set price. In other words, it won’t turn them into dumb pipes.

    Hell, even Verizon, talking with investors behind closed doors, has admitted that this kind of strong net neutrality won’t hurt their business or reduce future investment. Similarly, Republican legislators recently introduced their alternative plan, and the striking thing is that is calls for the same changes: prohibiting blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. They just want Congress to be making that decision, not the FCC. Tim Wu, the man who coined the phrase "net neutrality", thinks their proposal is pretty good!

    So how to explain this dramatic reaction from Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits? It’s the same cynical, knee-jerk opposition that has defined the last six years of government. Whatever the president wants, they can’t stand. And even when it’s not Obama doing the deciding, they find a way to make it about him. "Chairman Wheeler's proposal to regulate the Internet as a public utility is not about net neutrality," said a statement from Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune. "It is a power grab for the federal government by the chairman of a supposedly independent agency who finally succumbed to the bully tactics of political activists and the president himself."

    By turning net neutrality into "Obamacare for the Internet" these alarmists have given themselves a political boogeyman, something they can trot out to scare voters and raise campaign dollars. But cries that the sky is falling on the future of the internet simply don’t match the facts on the ground."

    This idea of the internet grinding to a halt is not even possible by simply equalising the traffic and ISPs will still be allowed to offer tiered pricing so you can still get a 20Mbit/s package, a 50Mbit/s package etc, they just can't deny you what you're paying for based on the traffic. It specifically says no taxes too:

    http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet

    Demonization of the current administration has been a surprisingly successful tactic though, and that's a sad reflection on the intelligence of those who buy into it. This thread displays a microcosm of that mindset among posters whom one might have hoped would represent a more thoughtful and rational demographic. Net neutrality is not a hard concept to grasp, and it's benefits are obvious. If it has significant negatives then it's notable that the only attempted arguments against it, in over seven pages of comment, have been random unsupported assertions, mostly comprising some of the most stupid slippery slope fallacies that I've seen in a long time, and the even more stupid attempts to link this to the ACA.
  • Reply 293 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    And yet the complete ruling is unavailable for anyone to dissect. 

    Y'all keep saying this.

     

    But I gave you a link to the text of what was actually voted on.

  • Reply 294 of 376
    davendaven Posts: 693member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Y'all keep saying this.

     

    But I gave you a link to the text of what was actually voted on.




    Give them credit for blindly sticking to the RNC talking points.

  • Reply 295 of 376
    Y'all keep saying this.

    But I gave you a link to the text of what was actually voted on.

    You gave a link to the 300-page ruling?

    Nope. Because there isn't one.
  • Reply 296 of 376
    davendaven Posts: 693member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    You gave a link to the 300-page ruling?



    Nope. Because there isn't one.



    Then how do you know it is 300 pages?

  • Reply 297 of 376
    Originally Posted by 65C816 View Post

    Does that help?

     

    Does it include the 300 pages they refuse to show us but have shown the telecoms?

     

    Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

    Then how do you know it is 300 pages?

     

    Oh, come off it.

  • Reply 298 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    You gave a link to the 300-page ruling?



    Nope. Because there isn't one.

    You got it. There isn't one.

     

    You may be confusing it with a 317-page White House whatever-the-heck-it-was: read Ajit Pai's hysterical conspiracy-laden dissent (although, he sounds like he forgot to take his meds).

     

    What is this "300-page" document you (and a lot of right-wing conspiracy theorists) keep referring to? Honestly?

  • Reply 299 of 376
    You got it. There isn't one.

    You may be confusing it with a 317-page White House whatever-the-heck-it-was: read Ajit Pai's hysterical conspiracy-laden dissent (although, he sounds like he forgot to take his meds).

    What is this "300-page" document you (and a lot of right-wing conspiracy theorists) keep referring to? Honestly?

    So you're confirming there is no link.
  • Reply 300 of 376
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

    Then how do you know it is 300 pages?

     

    Oh, come off it.


    No, you put up, or shut up. What is this 300-page document you keep referring to? Where or what is it supposed to be? Who says it's there?

     

    Again, as I asked SS above, are you sure you're not confusing it with a WH document that Ajit Pai (the rightwing nut on the panel) refers to?

Sign In or Register to comment.