View Full Version : FCC Governing the net as a PUC?
Can anyone else verify what I heard the other day - the FCC is going to start governing the internet as a PUC? If so, what's next?
I follow Internet regulations pretty closely and this is the first I have heard of it. They are talking about net neutrality but this is a good thing.
An Undocumented Worker
05-08-10, 21:58
WTF is a
PUC?
WTF is a
PUC?
Public utilities commission.
An Undocumented Worker
05-08-10, 22:24
and what does this mean to us?
Nathan_Bell
05-09-10, 08:51
I follow Internet regulations pretty closely and this is the first I have heard of it. They are talking about net neutrality but this is a good thing.
Umm, no it isn't. Net neutrality, at base, is a direct attack on private property rights. It gets flowery phrases put around it, but it is the same as telling someone who built a private drive that they cannot restrict who drives on it and how fast they go.
and what does this mean to us?
It means what ever they deem unsuitable or a danger to the public will be shut down. This is how they are going to control ALL of the information out there. All in the name of public safety.
Jeremy
it will mean that M4C will be shut down since their is not a proper ANTI gun forum to balance it out ! or that the anit gun forum will be allowed since it will bring balance to the force !
I follow Internet regulations pretty closely and this is the first I have heard of it. They are talking about net neutrality but this is a good thing.
I beg to differ on the met neutrality being a good thing. Net neutrality is nothing more than a watered down version of the Fairness Doctrine or whatever it was called before that. Basically it's the though police forcing their way into your life to make everything politically correct. The idea is to quelch or minimize the ease and speed of politcal dissent by adding beurocratic red tape to everything. Violate the subjective red tape rules and they have the right to shut you down. Pretty simple to shut down Beck for instance if he fails to post a sufficiently liberal counterpoint to his argument to appease the Internet czar.
Also gives the gov more taxing authority over rates and such than they already have. The most likely first effect will be rate hikes to offset new fees and license schemes imposed by the FCC. Then you will see rate hikes due to providers having to offer same service to low profit ventures. This is similar to the crap you see with the universal access fees. They are mostly there to offset costs associated with mandatory service provisioning in low SES neighborhoods. AT&T, Verizon, ComCast... all have to make their high speed services available in crap neighborhoods where they will have zero service subscription cause nobody can afford it. They still have to spend the money to pull the glass and upgrade boxes... even though they have no hope of ever getting a return on that investment. This is the first step in imementing this kind of crap on a content level.
it will mean that M4C will be shut down since their is not a proper ANTI gun forum to balance it out ! or that the anit gun forum will be allowed since it will bring balance to the force !
That would be the Fairness Doctrine. That was already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If this goes through it will be easier for them to do what they want. If any of you think this or Net Neutrality or the Fairness Doctrine is OK or a good thing really need to read up on them. They are VERY BAD for everybody (except those in charge.) These "laws" will make the 1st Amendment void. They already have most of the media in their pockets, now they have to shut down the Internet, so no one will be able to see what they are doing. Anytime the govt. does anything for the "greater good" or for "public safety" you really need to analyze it. It usually is just to get them more power.
Jeremy
Actually net neutrality does exactly the opposite. It keeps companies or organizations from Throtteling or blocking content. Currently a number of companies are looking at putting in systems where they determine what you see and if you want to see the entire Internet then you had better be wiling to pay. Want to see m4c? Better hope your provide likes it.
Net neutrality keeps them from doing this.
thopkins22
05-09-10, 21:12
Net Neutrality for Dummies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juw5Ew_fKgs
Net neutrality isn't in place today, and yet I'm quite able to visit M4C, and just about everything else I can dream of.
ETA: Not calling anyone a dummy, it's the title of the video. It's one of those things that SEEMS right...but really isn't.
Net Neutrality for Dummies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juw5Ew_fKgs
Net neutrality isn't in place today, and yet I'm quite able to visit M4C, and just about everything else I can dream of.
ETA: Not calling anyone a dummy, it's the title of the video. It's one of those things that SEEMS right...but really isn't.
The problem with that video is that it keeps saying that the market should regulate what happens on the Internet. The problem with that is that you have a few companies with near complete control over the net. There is no free market in place. If Comcast decides to limit content I can either deal with it or.... Well deal with it.
Another point is that bNdwith throttling has been done by some major ISPs. A few big ones started throttling torrents (even the legal ones) when people complained they were told to pound sand.
These same companies also stated they would never go to a pay per use style structure. Yet a number of them are testing it in Some markets.
The i nternet is a young and very unique medium. I don't want the government involved in it. But I don't want a few companies deciding what I see and don't see either.
That would be the Fairness Doctrine.
no this will be net neutrality in general and yes we both agree anything the gov does is bad !!!!
maybe I should have said sites like this one might be forced out do to prices rising to compensate for others :) and some other sites from the anits will be funded to keep going
not saying you will have to balance things and yes I over did it in my example :) so will try to explain why I said what I did ;)
when the gov is in control of things to make sure their is a level playing field ?? I cant see it ending good
yes it is suposedly setup for networks to make sure they are equal but it is to open and also at this point does not separate from content P2P is a good example
at this point many throttle it to compensate for other things which should be their right ! so when P2P is forced open whats going to happen ? other things are going to suffer and they will have to figure that out and something will have to give
the companies should be allowed to control this
so lets say they force the companies to open up P2P ? they say OK but we are going to now have to charge for traffice over a certain amount and you will end up paying way more for people downloading illegal movies and such
since they cant get the fairness doctrorine on the net if they control the net and are to BALANCE the net they will find ways around it
when the companies have to open up hosting bandwidth to other activities prices will sky rocket in some cases and make sites such as M4C very expensive to run and they wont be able to and most likely will go under.
the small business is going to be hurt the small ISP and the small server companies will be hurt in making this balance
I guess my take is why have the gov take over control of the networks that deliver our internet and make sure things are balanced !!!!!
sounds like China ! also the gov is never good at balancing anything and has a long proven track record they are idiots when it comes to making money and balancing things
but they are very good at messing things up raising costs and lowering the quality of what you get
Ok, I was confusing the two.
A quote from the president this weekend on this matter. "Information is a distraction." This admin is scary...:(
Jeremy
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.