Net Neutrality

[Belmont31R]

The wrong words: how the FCC lost net neutrality and could kill the internet http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/15/5311948/net-neutrality-and-the-death-of-the-internet


I am for NN.

[glocktogo]

If ISP's get the bright idea that they can treat the net like it's another cable TV cash cow, they'd better think again. If they squeeze the goose that lays the golden eggs too hard, it's going to shit on them. :mad:

[Swag]

Look up "Free The Airwaves", White Spaces Coalition, Wireless Innovation Alliance, White Space Alliance. Then look at who is killing the move to make it a reality...(hint: The National Association Of Broadcasters). It's pretty obscene the extensive lengths they have went to keep us in the dark ages. The net was at one time called the "Information Highway". Now it's just a toll road.

[Big A]

Can somebody please explain what the article said? I read it twice but I'm not sure what to be concerned about.

Service providers can create whatever rules they want and the FCC can't do dick about it?

[streck]

Basically, ISPs may control what content you access on the internet.

FCC used to mandate that Comcast, Verizon, etc could not restrict or control the customer's (you) access to online content. With this ruling, they can either charge you to access certain content (think Netflix, Hulu, Torrent) or regulate bandwidth for certain types of content.

Either way, it is bad for the customers.

This may be a easier read: LINK (http://mashable.com/2014/01/14/fcc-net-neutrality-ruling/)

[Koshinn]

Legally, here's what happened:

The FCC tried to regulate broadband service providers under their mandate that allows them to regulate common carriers (cellphone providers, non-cable, etc).

The Court said that the regulation itself was not wrong, but the FCC cannot regulate broadband service providers because they are not common carriers.

So Net Neutrality is not illegal per se, but the way it was done wasn't legal. Thus Congress can either A) directly mandate net neutrality or B) make broadband service providers common carriers and thus under the FCC's jurisdiction.

Net Neutrality still most likely applies to 3G and 4G (cell) internet users as well as dial-up (lol).

[Moose-Knuckle]

As we move ever closer to a centralized form of government, the state would easily be able to implement censorship of the internet.

I forget who said it but it fits; "The internet is the most powerful weapon since the printing press."

[kwelz]

As we move ever closer to a centralized form of government, the state would easily be able to implement censorship of the internet.

I forget who said it but it fits; "The internet is the most powerful weapon since the printing press."

The irony is that in this case the .gov was trying to block any attempt at providers to censor or black information..

[SOWT]

So the Political Correctness could determine which internet sites are acceptable?

[kwelz]

So the Political Correctness could determine which internet sites are acceptable?

Even worse. How much a company pays another company will determine what is acceptable. This will destroy any chance of innovation on the internet.
I could create a site that revolutionizes video for instance. Something that make Youtube obsolete. However if Youtube is paying internet providers to give their site a higher priority for traffic, or perhaps not to count against a data cap then I would stand no chance in competing against them. It is the ultimate way to crush competition.

[justin_247]

Ah, "net neutrality"... finally a form of government regulation that libertarians can get behind. :jester: :sarcastic: :lol:

:stop:

[justin_247]

For those who don't know, the idea of "net neutrality" was invented by a socialist named Robert McChesney, who used to be the co-editor of Monthly Review (a Marxist journal that has been published for decades).

Here's more info in an easily digestible form:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/11/the-neomarxist-who-is-helping-to-influence-obamas-media-policy/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop=&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEADTop%3D#articleTabs%3Darticle

Of course, you can also read McChesney's article, "The Internet's Unholy Marriage to Capitalism."
http://monthlyreview.org/2011/03/01/the-internets-unholy-marriage-to-capitalism

He was somewhat inspired by The dotCommunist Manifesto, published back in 2003 by Evan Moglin. You can find it here:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/dcm.html

[justin_247]

The irony is that in this case the .gov was trying to block any attempt at providers to censor or black information..

Question for you... can you show me a single case of an ISP that intentionally limited access to any specific website? The cases are few and far between...

Now how many things can you think of that government has attempted to block access to?

Funny how so many are now rushing to the chief censor for private sector problems that are practically non-existent.

[Koshinn]

Question for you... can you show me a single case of an ISP that intentionally limited access to any specific website? The cases are few and far between...

Your argument is "show me a case where it has happened? You can't because it hasn't!" ... But it hasn't happened because it has been illegal until last week or so. So what's your point?

[justin_247]

The rules were put into place in 2010. The internet didn't start in 2010, last I checked...

[kwelz]

So we should trust the communication companies more than we trust the government? Hardly. Don't think for a moment that the cable companies, Verizon, etc won't do everything in their power to squash anything that competes with what they want you to have. They have done it for decades now.

And here are just a few of the more prominent examples of why Net Neutrality became and issue.

http://netneutrality.koumbit.org/en/node/5

This is a rare case of Government actually trying to protect something. In this case the free flow of information.
Government does not always = evil. (Just most of the time)

The old adage of if you don't like it then use something else or create something better isn't really that valid in the telecommunications industry anymore. Most people don't have a choice in provider, and the companies have done a great job of making sure that there is no way for competition to start up.

[justin_247]

So we should trust the communication companies more than we trust the government? Hardly. Don't think for a moment that the cable companies, Verizon, etc won't do everything in their power to squash anything that competes with what they want you to have. They have done it for decades now.

And here are just a few of the more prominent examples of why Net Neutrality became and issue.

http://netneutrality.koumbit.org/en/node/5

This is a rare case of Government actually trying to protect something. In this case the free flow of information.
Government does not always = evil. (Just most of the time)

The old adage of if you don't like it then use something else or create something better isn't really that valid in the telecommunications industry anymore. Most people don't have a choice in provider, and the companies have done a great job of making sure that there is no way for competition to start up.

You seriously think the government, in this case the FCC, is interested in protecting the "free flow of information"? The same government that grows ever more restrictive of your gun rights? You're playing with fire.

Personally, I would rather have competition of the marketplace than government-imposed mandates.

You guys are really no different than the gun-banners...

Oh, I should also note... do you know why there is little competition in some areas? HINT HINT: it goes back to a government-supported telecommunications monopoly.

[kwelz]

You seriously think the government, in this case the FCC, is interested in protecting the "free flow of information"? The same government that grows ever more restrictive of your gun rights? You're playing with fire.

Personally, I would rather have competition of the marketplace than government-imposed mandates.

You guys are really no different than the gun-banners...

That is a heck of a low blow. And very inaccurate. Gun banners are trying to take things away. We are talking about making sure things are not taken away.

And yes in this case I do think the FCC is interested in doing just that. Once again. Not all government is evil.

And there is no competition in this marketplace. The companies involved have made sure of that. They are an effective monopoly.

[justin_247]

That is a heck of a low blow. And very inaccurate. Gun banners are trying to take things away. We are talking about making sure things are not taken away.

And yes in this case I do think the FCC is interested in doing just that. Once again. Not all government is evil.

And there is no competition in this marketplace. The companies involved have made sure of that. They are an effective monopoly.

No, there is little competition in certain areas because of the way that the government-supported telecommunications monopoly, AT&T, was broken up. The exact same issue exists in Great Britain, and has the exact same cause (how British Telecom was broken up).

But, no, there is no difference between you and the gun banners. They want more government regulation of firearms. You want more government regulation of telecommunications. The only difference is that you may differ with regard as to which segments of society you think should be regulated.

[kwelz]

So a question for you. In your view are all government regulations bad?

[justin_247]

So a question for you. In your view are all government regulations bad?

Pretty much.

My big issue here is that most people who call for more regulation of something generally do not know the history behind a lot of the things they are calling for regulations on. Like how those who supported the Affordable Care Act would rave on about bad old HMOs... they apparently did not know that HMOs were a creation of the government. So, because of this lack of historical knowledge, despite it being a government-generated problem, they wanted an even more onerous government-managed solution. I see this in much the same light.

People, day in and day out, complain about the ever-growing, almost impossible-to-track list of insane regulations (which are, effectively, laws that are created by a non-Congressional source) from 430 government agencies. But really, it's the people that are the problem, not the agencies, because the people always have something that they think should be regulated, so they're willing to compromise.

[kwelz]

But that is the crux of it. Not all laws or regulations are bad things. Over regulation sure as he'll is. Heck that is one reason healthcare is so bad. But at the same time there are many regulations that so help us on a day to day basis. Like anything else the danger is when they go to far.

[justin_247]

But that is the crux of it. Not all laws or regulations are bad things. Over regulation sure as he'll is. Heck that is one reason healthcare is so bad. But at the same time there are many regulations that so help us on a day to day basis. Like anything else the danger is when they go to far.

One person's "over-regulation" is "common sense regulation" to another and "not nearly far enough" to somebody else. The fact of the matter is that you support regulation, as long as it benefits you. I don't see a difference between you and them.

The argument that you are making is very similar to the arguments made by a few recently-fired firearms magazine editors.

[kwelz]

That is the case with any law though. The only alternative is literal anarchy. You support regulations too. You just see it differently.

[justin_247]

That is the case with any law though. The only alternative is literal anarchy. You support regulations too. You just see it differently.

Correct. I argue that the FCC does not have the Constitutional authority to regulate this "spectrum," and it just so happens that most of the the courts, for once, agree with me. Now, if lawyers are smart, they should be able to use this precedent to tear down a whole host of regulations from a slew of agencies.

This level of regulatory authority (law-making authority, as far as I am concerned) should be limited to Congress, and nobody else.

[kwelz]

Correct. I argue that the FCC does not have the Constitutional authority to regulate this "spectrum," and it just so happens that most of the the courts, for once, agree with me. Now, if lawyers are smart, they should be able to use this precedent to tear down a whole host of regulations from a slew of agencies.

This level of regulatory authority (law-making authority, as far as I am concerned) should be limited to Congress, and nobody else.

You need to read the whole decision. That is not what the decision said.
It just has to do with how the carriers are classified.

You and I may not like it but there are a number of things we need regulations on. This is one of them.
We can't fall into the false ideal that government is inherently evil and business/capitalism is inherently good. Both are neutral by nature. It is how it is used that is the problem. Businesses making money is a good thing. But profit at the expense of all else is bad. Regulations to benefit us are good Such as making sure insurance companies are on the up and up. But regulations that strangle companies like nit being able to sell insurance across state lines are bad.

Most corporations will have no problem screwing any of us for a profit. Especially when they know that we have no alternatives.

Yes there are shades of grey. And not everyone will agree on those shades.

[justin_247]

You need to read the whole decision. That is not what the decision said.
It just has to do with how the carriers are classified.

You and I may not like it but there are a number of things we need regulations on. This is one of them.
We can't fall into the false ideal that government is inherently evil and business/capitalism is inherently good. Both are neutral by nature. It is how it is used that is the problem. Businesses making money is a good thing. But profit at the expense of all else is bad. Regulations to benefit us are good Such as making sure insurance companies are on the up and up. But regulations that strangle companies like nit being able to sell insurance across state lines are bad.

Most corporations will have no problem screwing any of us for a profit. Especially when they know that we have no alternatives.

Yes there are shades of grey. And not everyone will agree on those shades.

You are correct that the exact decision does not necessarily support my interpretation.

But on the rest we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Most everything you are saying here is what I would expect out of a man of the Left, and everything you're saying is just riddled with nonsense (like conflating business with capitalism, as if they are one and the same... it just goes downhill from there).

[kwelz]

Do you disagree that business can be just as bad as government?

[justin_247]

No, private business does not have a monopoly on violence like the government, so government can be inherently worse than private business. If government ever allows any kind of competition in that arena, we can debate that aspect of it further.

This short video from a debate between Charles Murray and Ralph Nader explains my position perfectly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYuN9aJMof4

Also, I will re-emphasize this, capitalism/free-markets and business are not one and the same. In many ways, businesses work to corrupt capitalism when it does not work for them. A good example of this is the 1960s, when many gun manufacturers quietly supported import bans on "weapons without a sporting purpose" because it would increase domestic sales for them. In this case, they were diametrically opposed to the free-market.

[kwelz]

No, private business does not have a monopoly on violence like the government, so government can be inherently worse than private business. If government ever allows any kind of competition in that arena, we can debate that aspect of it further.

This short video from a debate between Charles Murray and Ralph Nader explains my position perfectly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYuN9aJMof4

Also, I will re-emphasize this, capitalism/free-markets and business are not one and the same. In many ways, businesses work to corrupt capitalism when it does not work for them. A good example of this is the 1960s, when many gun manufacturers quietly supported import bans on "weapons without a sporting purpose" because it would increase domestic sales for them. In this case, they were diametrically opposed to the free-market.

I agree that Capitalism and Business are not the same thing. In fact I believe I must have misread something you said earlier because I was under the impression you were trying to say they are the same.

And no businesses do not use violence. Their means are more subtle. But equally as destructive and dangerous.

[justin_247]

And no businesses do not use violence. Their means are more subtle. But equally as destructive and dangerous.

Yeah... right. Give me an example of something a business can do that's worse than losing your life or being permanently imprisoned. Please.

[montanadave]

Just a programming note. NPR's On Point program has an hour-long discussion on net neutrality today: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/01/21/net-neutrality-fcc-netflix-streaming

The recording of today's show is not yet available for listening due to different programming times around the country but should be up tonight or tomorrow morning. The link above also includes several links to additional online articles on the same subject.

[Armati]

At the end of the day, it does not matter if govt is oppressing We The People or if a large soulless multinational Mega-Corp is oppressing we the people. Who would you prefer controlling your life?

William Gibson predicted this day would come.

[Armati]

Yeah... right. Give me an example of something a business can do that's worse than losing your life or being permanently imprisoned. Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Silkwood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

Conservatives who think corps are not as dangerous as govts are simply ignoring the facts they don't like. Corps can, in fact, replace govt. Crony Capitalism is the first step in this process.

Both govts and corps need to be kept in check to ensure the future of the individual citizen.