The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

[Cabal]

I am confused about this issue I trust most of the opinions of the people here but someone else says this is great they are a liberal all hooked up to the system but they are a pretty good geek though,

It opens more doors to intervention and regulation that were previously closed. It doesn't necessarily mean anything on it's own, it's just a step in a grander scheme. However, with these doors now open, bad things will inevitably follow, and the State will have access to more avenues of intervention and regulation than it did before, where the internet is concerned.

It's somewhat analogous to the Patriot Act, for instance. It gives the State more potential room to influence and operate in the internet industry, allowing them to bypass legal hurdles that had previously hindered them from doing certain things.

 

[AuH20]

It opens more doors to intervention and regulation that were previously closed. It doesn't necessarily mean anything on it's own, it's just a step in a grander scheme. However, with these doors now open, bad things will inevitably follow, and the State will have access to more avenues of intervention and regulation than it did before, where the internet is concerned.

It's somewhat analogous to the Patriot Act, for instance. It gives the State more potential room to influence and operate in the internet industry.

 

[Sam I am]

Is it a failure of our educational system?

Is it a byproduct of the fast food mentality (i.e. I want it now and damn the consequences!) especially ingrained into the younger generations?

HOW COULD ANYONE BE SO GODDAMN SHORTSIGHTED AND NOT SEE WHERE THIS WAS GOING!!!! THE ELITES HAVE MAPPED HUMAN DESIRES & COMPULSIONS TO SUCH A SCIENCE THAT THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO SELL FASCISM AND TYRANNY.

From where I'm standing, it appears to be an example of rampant paranoia and fear mongering

 

[Natural Citizen]

I am confused about this issue I trust most of the opinions of the people here but someone else says this is great they are a liberal all hooked up to the system but they are a pretty good geek though,

The article in the op doesn't do a very good job at explaining what it actually does. Here..try this one... FCC adopts net neutrality rules endorsed by open internet advocates

I don't like the idea of government involvement but the actual change itself was needed. And that is something that we won't read so much about as we will all of the political doublespeak.

 

[AuH20]

From where I'm standing, it appears to be an example of rampant paranoia and fear mongering

Do you think that the FCC should invoke Title II status over some minor pricing and throttling issues? Does that make any sense at face value? Even Mark Cuban is perplexed when the alleged solutions aren't in scale to the actual problem. It's like dropping a JDAM ordinance on a termite hill. It's completely unnecessary.

 

[Sam I am]

Do you think that the FCC should be invoke Title II status over some minor pricing and throttling issues? Does that make any sense at face value? Even Mark Cuban is perplexed when the alleged solutions aren't in scale to the actual problem. It's like dropping a JDAM ordinance on a termite hill. It's completely unnecessary.

No I don't think that the FCC needs to regulate the internet at all.

I'm just point out that I can't see a meaningful difference between you, and the people who pushed to get this measure enacted.

 

[Lucille]

The article in the op doesn't do a very good job at explaining what it actually does. Here..try this one... FCC adopts net neutrality rules endorsed by open internet advocates useful idiots

FTFY

 

[AuH20]

This particular pro net neutrality article is actually quoting Art Laffer (Reagan's supply side econ advisor) and begging for internet taxes.

https://www.occupycorporatism.com/h...orps-lose-internet-economy-profits-advantage/

The fight over net neutrality boils down to the securitization of the internet economy that is only now in its infancy and poised to become the next lucrative bubble.

In 2013, economist Art Lafler concluded a study wherein he found that should the House of Representative legislate an internet sales tax, there would be a boost to economic growth.

Lafler states that internet taxation will cause business growth and revenue for state governments. According to estimations, Lafler claims that “the nation’s gross domestic product could increase by $563.2 billion over 10 years if the Marketplace Fairness Act is enacted and states use the revenue to cut more burdensome taxes, such as income taxes.”

In May of 2014, the Senate passed a bill that would “force Internet retailers to collect sales taxes for state and local governments” called S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (MFA), allows for “states to force online retailers with more than $1 million in annual out-of-state sales to collect sales taxes from all customers and remit those taxes back to state and local governments.

Lafler admits: “I am assuming these states use their funds correctly, and if they do and if every state did, it would add to national growth dramatically. This is just economic efficiency, pure and simple. If you use a better tax structure, you’re going to be able to get better growth, employment, output, production, and tax revenues than if you use a poorer tax structure. And the better tax structure here would include all sales, not just those sales that are in brick-and-mortar operations within a state.”

Tired of being abused by ruthless Internet Service Providers? Well, don't fear since it's Big Government's turn to join in on the orgy.

 

[AuH20]

Cuban is getting slammed on Twitter by the enlightened ones.

http://recode.net/2015/02/21/mark-cuban-inflames-the-internet-again-this-time-over-net-neutrality/

To paraphrase...

Cuban, you're rich and DUMB! You're absurdly rich...

 

[Lucille]

Net Neutrality: Triumph of the Ruling Class
http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/

A triumph of “free expression and democratic principles”? How stupid do they think we are?

It’s been painful to watch the gradual tightening of government control in the name of net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to rewrite the rules and declare the Internet as a public utility seals the deal. It cartelizes the industry and turns a “Wild West” into a planned system of public management — or at least intends to.

All the rest is a veneer to cover what is actually a power grab.

This whole plot has had all the usual elements. It has a good name and its supporters say it is about stopping private and public control. It’s had the backing of all the top names in content delivery, from Yahoo to Netflix to A_mazon. It’s had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers. The decision to impose the rule has been declared by a tiny group of unaccountable bureaucrats operating with the support of the executive lame duck.

The opposition, in contrast, has been represented by small players in the industry, hardware providers like Cisco, free-market think tanks and disinterested professors, and a small group of writers and pundits who know something about freedom and free-market economics. The public at large should have been rising up in opposition but people are largely ignorant of what’s going on.

Here’s what’s really going on. The incumbent rulers of the world’s most exciting technology have decided to locked down the prevailing market conditions to protect themselves against rising upstarts in a fast-changing market. To impose a new rule against throttling content or using the market price system to allocate bandwidth resources protects against innovations that would disrupt the status quo.

What’s being sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers is actually a sop to industrial giants who are seeking untrammeled access to your wallet and an end to competitive threats to market power. One person I know compared the move to the creation of the Federal Reserve itself: the creation of an industrial cartel in the name of improving the macroeconomic environment. That’s a good comparison...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

FCC adopts net neutrality rules endorsed by open internet advocates

...the actual change itself was needed.

No. Net neutrality sounds good, mainly because it has the word "neutrality" in it, and who could be against neutrality? It's so... neutral! Sounds only fair, right?

The people promoting it believe (or at least present the story of -- some of them must know it's false) in a mythic history of the internet wherein the Internet never cared what type of information it was carrying, it just moved it. Streaming video, e-mail, whatever, it just treated everything the same.

Now first of all, this mythic history is not actually true. The internet has never been completely oblivious ("neutral") to what sort of information it is carrying. There are companies, like Akamai, whose business is to get websites better, faster service, in exchange for money.

Secondly, it is not at all clear why a such a situation should be considered a good thing. Why in the world would you want a streaming video conference call to be treated in the exact same way by the network as an electronic mail? Believe me, that is not a technical advantage. That's not a desirable state that we all should be thanking the FCC for codifying. Do we want "grocery neutrality" also, so that our strawberries and lettuce and other fresh produce can be shipped at the same speeds and priority as our canned beans?

One of the opennesses of the internet, a freedom, a wonderful thing about it, is that you can get what you pay for. You can choose how much you want to pay, and then you can get better or poorer or different service depending on how much you pay and from whom you want to buy. You can pay $20/month, or you can pay $100/month, or you can even pay nothing, and you will get widely varying service at those different rates. You get better, faster service in exchange for money.

Why is that bad? It's not. So it is a bit of a difficult issue to parse, Working Poor, but that's mainly because of the label -- Neutrality! -- and the way it's been framed. In reality it's an anti-freedom, anti-technology movement, this "net neutrality".

 

[AuH20]

No. Net neutrality sounds good, mainly because it has the word "neutrality" in it, and who could be against neutrality? It's so... neutral! Sounds only fair, right?

The people promoting it believe (or at least present the story of -- some of them must know it's false) in a mythic history of the internet wherein the Internet never cared what type of information it was carrying, it just moved it. Streaming video, e-mail, whatever, it just treated everything the same.

Now first of all, this mythic history is not actually true. The internet has never been completely oblivious ("neutral") to what sort of information it is carrying. There are companies, like Akamai, whose business is to get websites better, faster service, in exchange for money.

Secondly, it is not at all clear why a such a situation should be considered a good thing. Why in the world would you want a streaming video conference call to be treated in the exact same way by the network as an electronic mail? Believe me, that is not a technical advantage. That's not a desirable state that we all should be thanking the FCC for codifying. Do we want "grocery neutrality" also, so that our strawberries and lettuce and other fresh produce can be shipped at the same speeds and priority as our canned beans?

One of the opennesses of the internet, a freedom, a wonderful thing about it, is that you can get what you pay for. You can choose how much you want to pay, and then you can get better or poorer or different service depending on how much you pay and from whom you want to buy. You can pay $20/month, or you can pay $100/month, or you can even pay nothing, and you will get widely varying service at those different rates. You get better, faster service in exchange for money.

Why is that bad? It's not. So it is a bit of a difficult issue to parse, Working Poor, but that's mainly because of the label -- Neutrality! -- and the way it's been framed. In reality it's an anti-freedom, anti-technology movement, this "net neutrality".

Affordable Care Act. Net Neutrality. I'm starting to see a trend here. I wonder what they have in mind to replace the unsettling term 'Martial Law' with? The Family Time Initiative?

 

[AuH20]

Net Neutrality: Triumph of the Ruling Class
http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/

Brought to you by your friends at the Tavistock Institute.

 

[AuH20]

No. Net neutrality sounds good, mainly because it has the word "neutrality" in it, and who could be against neutrality? It's so... neutral! Sounds only fair, right?

The people promoting it believe (or at least present the story of -- some of them must know it's false) in a mythic history of the internet wherein the Internet never cared what type of information it was carrying, it just moved it. Streaming video, e-mail, whatever, it just treated everything the same.

Now first of all, this mythic history is not actually true. The internet has never been completely oblivious ("neutral") to what sort of information it is carrying. There are companies, like Akamai, whose business is to get websites better, faster service, in exchange for money.

Secondly, it is not at all clear why a such a situation should be considered a good thing. Why in the world would you want a streaming video conference call to be treated in the exact same way by the network as an electronic mail? Believe me, that is not a technical advantage. That's not a desirable state that we all should be thanking the FCC for codifying. Do we want "grocery neutrality" also, so that our strawberries and lettuce and other fresh produce can be shipped at the same speeds and priority as our canned beans?

One of the opennesses of the internet, a freedom, a wonderful thing about it, is that you can get what you pay for. You can choose how much you want to pay, and then you can get better or poorer or different service depending on how much you pay and from whom you want to buy. You can pay $20/month, or you can pay $100/month, or you can even pay nothing, and you will get widely varying service at those different rates. You get better, faster service in exchange for money.

Why is that bad? It's not. So it is a bit of a difficult issue to parse, Working Poor, but that's mainly because of the label -- Neutrality! -- and the way it's been framed. In reality it's an anti-freedom, anti-technology movement, this "net neutrality".

I want to live in a world where my data packets are not discriminated against!

 

[Origanalist]

FTFY

Out of rep

 

[devil21]

I'm already seeing net strangeness and changes today since this was released. Two sites I visit daily, which are always reliable, have content problems and another is making me agree to some new terms of service to access it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Aside - FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition

Nineteen states have such laws, often passed at the behest of private Internet service providers that didn't want to face competition. Communities in two of the states asked the FCC to take action.

“You can’t say you’re for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it,” Wheeler said today. “You can’t say, ‘I want to follow the explicit instructions of Congress to remove barriers to infrastructure investment,' but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. You can’t say you’re for competition but deny local elected officials the right to offer competitive choices."

States have given municipalities the authority to offer broadband but made it difficult with tons of bureaucratic requirements, he said. "The bottom line is some states have created thickets of red tape designed to limit competition," he said. Local residents and businesses are the ones suffering the consequences, he argued, pointing to members of the two communities in the audience.

 

[AuH20]

Aside - FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition

Why can't they do that with health insurance? Nevertheless, who's to say that the FCC won't implement rules (or perhaps they have?) on a national level that only the larger ISPs can realistically adhere to?

 

[DamianTV]

I think the most important questions here are A: Why is it 322 pages long? and B: Why is every single thing about it kept secret? I mean literally SECRET! NO ONE knows what the hell is actually hidden in those whopping 322 pages, not the Congress, not your Representatives, not even the President himself is "allowed" to know the contents of the package? Might just as well start labelling everything Birthday Cake and load the contents of the Cake up with mini nukes. But on that SECRECY, there is one guy in politics that may have taken our side:



We no longer know now the laws we will be charged with breaking, yet,ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is more Doublethink. Youre not even allowed to know what the Law is until you are Convicted of it. And even then, you probably still will not even know what the Secret Law was that you broke. This is VERY dangerous. This is Nuclear Fire Dangerous.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think the most important questions here are A: Why is it 322 pages long? and B: Why is every single thing about it kept secret? I mean literally SECRET! NO ONE knows what the hell is actually hidden in those whopping 322 pages, not the Congress, not your Representatives, not even the President himself is "allowed" to know the contents of the package? Might just as well start labelling everything Birthday Cake and load the contents of the Cake up with mini nukes. But on that SECRECY, there is one guy in politics that may have taken our side:



We no longer know now the laws we will be charged with breaking, yet,ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is more Doublethink. Youre not even allowed to know what the Law is until you are Convicted of it. And even then, you probably still will not even know what the Secret Law was that you broke. This is VERY dangerous. This is Nuclear Fire Dangerous.

The Chekha would be totally jealous.