Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

If Obama can stand in front of the nation on TV and out right lie about ObamaCare a great multitude of times,what makes you think you can trust him and believe him in this case?

Mithros said:

I'm pretty sure that this post is well outside the acceptable levels of civility for this forum and by rights should be reported. FOAD and burn in hell? You probably should chill out and ask yourself why on earth are you so upset at people who are for net neutrality. It's NOT in any way shape or form partisan.

ISPs are not the internet. They don't own the internet. They don't control traffic on the internet. They only control traffic between you and the internet.

Here's a thought experiment. What would you think if an ISP decided to prioritize all traffic coming from Speedtest.net by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test in order to make it look like their connect was faster than it actually was. Lets say the result of this was that is that your connection lags every-time someone else decides to run a speed test. So now you cant watch a glitch free movie because your ISP wants to pad it's speed scores.

THIS is what you're arguing for.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you somehow do not understand the meaning of "otherwise".

It is partisan because the left want "mommy government" to kiss their booboos and give them what they want. Your points so far have been that the government should do something instead of people making a decision and then take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Instead, just like a 3 year old, you want "mommy government" to something for you, aka, you are acting like a socialist.

Visbek said:

Meaning what, you oppose any government interference, with any industry, regardless of the potential benefits, because it might overreach? That doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

Name one program where the government hasn't overreached. It is in the government's nature to overreach.

DVSentinel said:

Apparently, you somehow do not understand the meaning of "otherwise".

It is partisan because the left want "mommy government" to kiss their booboos and give them what they want. Your points so far have been that the government should do something instead of people making a decision and then take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Instead, just like a 3 year old, you want "mommy government" to something for you, aka, you are acting like a socialist.

Click to expand...

You've clearly been on this board long enough to know that you were over the line. I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable.

Further, relying upon the government or even wishing the government to do something is a weakness shows someone to be a selfish moron. If you and others want this "net neutrality" then start a company that offers it. Get all your buddies together, collect investments, and work at displacing the others. Otherwise, FOAD and burn in hell like a good socialist should.

Click to expand...

Do you actually have a reason why you're against Net Neutrality?

Mithros said:

You've clearly been on this board long enough to know that you were over the line. I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

Do you have a quarter? Use it to call someone who cares. It's not exactly the first time I've told socialist scum that human race would be better of if the all would just kindly die.

Mithros said:

Do you actually have a reason why you're against Net Neutrality?

Click to expand...

Pull your head out of your ass. I haven't been arguing against "Net Neutrality". I've been arguing about the government being involved. It's a minor issue, at best, and definitely something people could pull off on their own without any government involvement if they would only grow up, be responsible and do things for themselves, instead of whining to their "Mommy", the government, to do something. It has nothing to do with "Net Neutrality", it is about "Government Neutrality" moron.

eohrnberger said:

Up to this point we are in agreement.

But you lost me here. I simply don't trust the government in this role. I recognize, as you do, how important the Internet is for the future, and I can't see anything but bad things with government's fingers in it.



Yeah, that's probably true.



Who's hated more? The telephone company. LOL. The government too.

Click to expand...

I think you've got me there, at least when it comes to congress. At least the cable company pretends to care.

I don't trust the government either. Fortunately I don't have to in this case. We're not talking about some government bureaucrat going into the ISPs switching station router's firmware and "investigating". But I think that individual providers should have some legal recourse if they're being extorted.

This is a graph of the average user's connection speed to Netflix by provider. The one to note is Comcast. In October 2013 Comcast was trying to get Netflix to sign a peering deal. Basically, that means that Comcast wanted netflix to pay money additional money to connect directly to individual Comcast ISPs. ie instead of You<->ISP<->INTERNET<->NetFlix... it would instead be just You<->ISP<->Netflix. This is how Google and several other companies have an internet "fast lane". It's actually part of Google's SOP, using large quantities of cheap distributed computing instead of more massive centralized servers.

What was different here is that Comcast purposefully delayed packets coming from the internet if their header originated from a Netflix IP. After the negotiations concluded and Netflix agreed to peer with comcast, their connection speed went back to what it should have been. That's not a healthy business practice.



If Netflix decided that the connection through the internet wasn't fast enough, then I don't have a problem with companies choosing to run direct connections to the individual IPs in order to better serve their customers. And I don't have a problem with Comcast charging them extra for it. That's all fine in Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality deals with the "FIFO-ness" of packets. That's why essentially everyone in tech wants it. It helps to prevent ISPs from sabotaging emerging content providers.

PeteEU said:

From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down. On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.

What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.

Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete. The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the US govt typically fund upgrades to the main backbone of the Internet infrastructure, or at least subsidize the providers?

Mithros said:

I think you've got me there, at least when it comes to congress. At least the cable company pretends to care.

I don't trust the government either. Fortunately I don't have to in this case. We're not talking about some government bureaucrat going into the ISPs switching station router's firmware and "investigating". But I think that individual providers should have some legal recourse if they're being extorted.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Content providers shouldn't be extorted to avoid a delay to their traffic.

However, once the government is involved, the only tendency for the bureaucrats is to continue to exert and grow their influence. It's just the nature of that beast.

Mithros said:

This is a graph of the average user's connection speed to Netflix by provider. The one to note is Comcast. In October 2013 Comcast was trying to get Netflix to sign a peering deal. Basically, that means that Comcast wanted netflix to pay money additional money to connect directly to individual Comcast ISPs. ie instead of You<->ISP<->INTERNET<->NetFlix... it would instead be just You<->ISP<->Netflix. This is how Google and several other companies have an internet "fast lane". It's actually part of Google's SOP, using large quantities of cheap distributed computing instead of more massive centralized servers.

What was different here is that Comcast purposefully delayed packets coming from the internet if their header originated from a Netflix IP. After the negotiations concluded and Netflix agreed to peer with comcast, their connection speed went back to what it should have been. That's not a healthy business practice.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This is most certainly bad behavior from Comcast. I'm not disputing that it isn't. I question what the most effective, and least impactful means for discouraging this sort of thing from the ISPs. Some are arguing that the FCC Net Neutrality regulation is the way to do it. Of this, I'm less certain, specific to the convers about government involvement in the Internet, ISPs, and content providers. It wasn't all that long ago when the FCC had the Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[SUP][1][/SUP]
[h=2]. . .
Formal revocation[/h] In June 2011, the Chairman and a subcommittee chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Republicans, said that the FCC, in response to their requests, had set a target date of August 2011 for removing the Fairness Doctrine and other "outdated" regulations from the FCC's rulebook.[SUP][49][/SUP]
On August 22, 2011, the FCC formally voted to repeal the language that implemented the Fairness Doctrine, along with removal of more than eighty other rules and regulations, from the Federal Register following a White House executive order directing a "government-wide review of regulations already on the books", to eliminate unnecessary regulations.[SUP][1]
[/SUP]

Click to expand...

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liberal programming wasn't able to effectively compete in the marketplace of ideas, Air America (radio network) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, so this was used to make the conservative programming carry their burden, and yet get their message out. The same mentality applied to the Internet? I say No!

Mithros said:

If Netflix decided that the connection through the internet wasn't fast enough, then I don't have a problem with companies choosing to run direct connections to the individual IPs in order to better serve their customers. And I don't have a problem with Comcast charging them extra for it. That's all fine in Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality deals with the "FIFO-ness" of packets. That's why essentially everyone in tech wants it. It helps to prevent ISPs from sabotaging emerging content providers.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Agreed. Content providers shouldn't be extorted to avoid a delay to their traffic.

However, once the government is involved, the only tendency for the bureaucrats is to continue to exert and grow their influence. It's just the nature of that beast.



Agreed. This is most certainly bad behavior from Comcast. I'm not disputing that it isn't. I question what the most effective, and least impactful means for discouraging this sort of thing from the ISPs. Some are arguing that the FCC Net Neutrality regulation is the way to do it. Of this, I'm less certain, specific to the convers about government involvement in the Internet, ISPs, and content providers. It wasn't all that long ago when the FCC had the Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liberal programming wasn't able to effectively compete in the marketplace of ideas, Air America (radio network) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, so this was used to make the conservative programming carry their burden, and yet get their message out. The same mentality applied to the Internet? I say No!

Click to expand...

I understand the antipathy and mistrust for government. There are plenty of examples of government overreach. It's human nature, unchecked power will always overreach.

But this isn't just limited to government. Businesses over-reach as well. Most of the time the market self regulates. But sometimes it doesn't. That's why we have anti-trust and patent law. Net Neutrality is more like those.

Blue_State said:

Name one program where the government hasn't overreached. It is in the government's nature to overreach.

Click to expand...

• National parks
• SNAP
• Bank regulations
• Divorce laws
• Allowing AT&T to operate as a monopoly for decades
• Balkans military intervention

And of course, we can cite lots of examples where self-regulation utterly failed. Here is today's example!
Banks Fined For Manipulating Foreign Exchange Currency-Trading Market - Business Insider

And let's not forget the LIBOR manipulation, or astounding examples of mortgage fraud in the mid 2000s, or the havoc wreaked by opaque derivatives, or labor abuses, or e.coli outbreaks or....

The reality is that we need regulation. Some of it can overreach, but a lot of it doesn't, since the only reason any regulation ever gets put in place is because someone pushed legislators hard enough to overcome corporate resistance.

eohrnberger said:

Agreed. Content providers shouldn't be extorted to avoid a delay to their traffic.

Click to expand...

Then who should stop ISPs from extorting service/content providers?

Agreed. This is most certainly bad behavior from Comcast. I'm not disputing that it isn't. I question what the most effective, and least impactful means for discouraging this sort of thing from the ISPs.

Click to expand...

Uh huh

So the alternative you offer is....?

By the way, keep in mind that the US government basically set up ICAAN and its predecessor organizations, since the Internet grew out of DOD projects / ARPANET. The Department of Commerce still technically controls the root servers. The idea that the US government had or has nothing to do with the Internet is, to put it mildly, incorrect.

It wasn't all that long ago when the FCC had the Fairness Doctrine....

Click to expand...

1) Net Neutrality is very different than the Fairness Doctrine.
2) What's wrong with the Fairness Doctrine?

Visbek said:

Then who should stop ISPs from extorting service/content providers?



Uh huh

So the alternative you offer is....?

Click to expand...

I think that pushing the response to the lowest level of government is the best move. So at the municipality level. Should that not prove to work sufficiently, then it'd be time for the FCC to step in. Each of the ISP / TV providers needs to have an agreement and support with the local municipality. So that'd be the first point of contact between the end user, government, and the ISP. Of course, individual law suits are always an option as well.

Visbek said:

By the way, keep in mind that the US government basically set up ICAAN and its predecessor organizations, since the Internet grew out of DOD projects / ARPANET. The Department of Commerce still technically controls the root servers. The idea that the US government had or has nothing to do with the Internet is, to put it mildly, incorrect.

Click to expand...

No, that's 100% correct. And it struck me as really odd, that Obama's government gives up the technical naming and addressing responsibility for the Internet, yet wants to inject the government into the regulation of content management (perhaps to prioritize government content uber alles in the future? Hmmmm)

Visbek said:

1) Net Neutrality is very different than the Fairness Doctrine.
2) What's wrong with the Fairness Doctrine?

Click to expand...

As I said, unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, liberal radio fell flat on it's face, and if I recall on a number of different instances. Hence the fairness doctrine, where programming was regulated and manipulated to make sure that the liberal perspective received equal mention.

Isn't that media manipulation as well?

Glad that wisdom arrived on scene to dismiss it. Any attempt to force such a thing back into media is a step down the wrong path, IMHO. You want equal mention? Be successful in the marketplace of ideas, and you will.

Visbek said:

• National parks
• SNAP
• Bank regulations
• Divorce laws
• Allowing AT&T to operate as a monopoly for decades
• Balkans military intervention

And of course, we can cite lots of examples where self-regulation utterly failed. Here is today's example!
Banks Fined For Manipulating Foreign Exchange Currency-Trading Market - Business Insider

And let's not forget the LIBOR manipulation, or astounding examples of mortgage fraud in the mid 2000s, or the havoc wreaked by opaque derivatives, or labor abuses, or e.coli outbreaks or....

The reality is that we need regulation. Some of it can overreach, but a lot of it doesn't, since the only reason any regulation ever gets put in place is because someone pushed legislators hard enough to overcome corporate resistance.

Click to expand...

Regulations based on false narratives were responsible for corrupting the Housing market.

The Government decided that the decades old standards used to vet lenders were innately discriminatory.

The Government then subsidized securities fraud on a unprecedented scale and created a near systemic collapse by co-opting the GSEs into buying massive amounts of worthless debt.

The implicit Government guarantee of securities that were backed with worthless assets allowed out Housing Bubble to extend out into the worlds capital markets.

The GSEs were the primary consumer of Securities backed by Subprime loans and created demand for a toxic product

When REAL regulations were attempted it was the Democrat Party that opposed them right up until the GSEs were declared insolvent holding over 5 Trillion dollars in debt.

Its understandable why some people would question new Regulatory actions by a party that substantial hand in creating the Subprime Bubble.

eohrnberger said:

I think that pushing the response to the lowest level of government is the best move. So at the municipality level.

Click to expand...

:lamo

I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. A city with 40,000 residents is not going to have the resources, experience, know-how, or weight to make a big cable company do anything.

The ISPs would also crap a brick at the mere idea of negotiating with 10,000 municipalities, even if they got their way most of the time.

Next...?

Should that not prove to work sufficiently, then it'd be time for the FCC to step in.

Click to expand...

There's no way it's going to work. So let's just skip it, and have the FCC do what it's supposed to do.

No, that's 100% correct. And it struck me as really odd, that Obama's government gives up the technical naming and addressing responsibility for the Internet, yet wants to inject the government into the regulation of content management (perhaps to prioritize government content uber alles in the future? Hmmmm)

Click to expand...

They're basically letting ICAAN do the work, and reserving the ability to step in if it's ever necessary.

More importantly is that the government has been involved with regulating and managing the Internet since before day 1, and doing so does not necessarily result in "overreach."

As I said, unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, liberal radio fell flat on it's face....

Click to expand...

OK, but what does that have to do with the Fairness Doctrine or Net Neutrality?

The Fairness Doctrine basically just meant that broadcasters had to set aside some time for political topics, much in the same way they were required to set aside some time for children's programming. It did not require any broadcasters to carry material by Air America.

.....Hence the fairness doctrine, where programming was regulated and manipulated to make sure that the liberal perspective received equal mention.

Click to expand...

Please. It did as much to ensure conservative voices as it did liberal ones.

When broadcasting was a scarce resource, it made more sense. Now that there are substantially more channels for discussion and distribution, it isn't really necessary anymore.

Glad that wisdom arrived on scene to dismiss it. Any attempt to force such a thing back into media is a step down the wrong path, IMHO. You want equal mention? Be successful in the marketplace of ideas, and you will.

Click to expand...

Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

Oh, and "equal mention" (i.e. Equal Time rule) is not the same thing as the FD, and also has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

NN has nothing to do whatsoever with political content. Nothing, nada, zilch, zippo. All it's about is ensuring that ISPs act like utilities, and treat all the data that crosses their lines as equal.

Visbek said:

:lamo

I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. A city with 40,000 residents is not going to have the resources, experience, know-how, or weight to make a big cable company do anything.

The ISPs would also crap a brick at the mere idea of negotiating with 10,000 municipalities, even if they got their way most of the time.

Next...?



There's no way it's going to work. So let's just skip it, and have the FCC do what it's supposed to do.

.

Click to expand...

Yeah. talk about massive inefficiency! yeesh!

Visbek said:

:lamo

I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd. A city with 40,000 residents is not going to have the resources, experience, know-how, or weight to make a big cable company do anything.

The ISPs would also crap a brick at the mere idea of negotiating with 10,000 municipalities, even if they got their way most of the time.

Next...?

There's no way it's going to work. So let's just skip it, and have the FCC do what it's supposed to do.

Click to expand...

The ISPs are already negotiating with 10,000 municipalities, for access to those markets, especially if they are also providing TV service.

Objection noted, and recorded as irrelevant. The follow up is that these municipalities does in fact have quite a bit of leverage over the ISPs / CableCos. If the ISP or CableCo gets kicked out of that market, they've lost. Enough people complain to the municipality, that's exactly what'll happen.

Visbek said:

They're basically letting ICAAN do the work, and reserving the ability to step in if it's ever necessary.

More importantly is that the government has been involved with regulating and managing the Internet since before day 1, and doing so does not necessarily result in "overreach."

OK, but what does that have to do with the Fairness Doctrine or Net Neutrality?

The Fairness Doctrine basically just meant that broadcasters had to set aside some time for political topics, much in the same way they were required to set aside some time for children's programming. It did not require any broadcasters to carry material by Air America.

Please. It did as much to ensure conservative voices as it did liberal ones.

When broadcasting was a scarce resource, it made more sense. Now that there are substantially more channels for discussion and distribution, it isn't really necessary anymore.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

Oh, and "equal mention" (i.e. Equal Time rule) is not the same thing as the FD, and also has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

NN has nothing to do whatsoever with political content. Nothing, nada, zilch, zippo. All it's about is ensuring that ISPs act like utilities, and treat all the data that crosses their lines as equal.

Click to expand...

Right now, it doesn't anything to do with content. If the government gets involved, how long is that going to remain true? Since when does government intervention stay put at any level? It expands over time. It always does, and it always has. I can see it now, the government will mandate that NAMBLA's web pages take priority over every other web page, as they are a protected class.

No, Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the Fairness doctrine, except that you are trusting the same government agency that came up with the Fairness Doctrine with your precious Net Neutrality. Frankly, they've not earned that trust, at least not from me.

The development of the Internet was in fact funded by the government, research by the DoD / DARPA, but by and large, the government has kept it's fingers off of it, and that's probably why it's doing as well as it has been. I'd much rather keep it that way.

Besides, the temporary traffic issue that causes all this concern has been resolved, as they all will be, because too much of a stand off that goes on too long will damage both businesses, and they know it.

No, we really don't need the federal government, or a federal government agency involved in how an ISP handles it's network traffic. That's just ridiculous.

eohrnberger said:

The ISPs are already negotiating with 10,000 municipalities...

Click to expand...

Yes, for things like right of way, not dealing with content providers or backend infrastructure. Oh, and that's only in municipalities they care to deal with; they haven't shown much interest in servicing rural communities. Except of course when compelled to and/or subsidized by, wait for it! state and federal governments. (And even they have a tough time compelling broadband providers to offer service in rural areas.)

And how would this work, exactly? Would a small city be empowered to rip out fiber if Verizon throttled Facebook, or a small VOD provider? Are hundreds of municipalities going to police Verizon's FIOS network? What if a city decides that it doesn't want its residents to watch Internet porn? Or wants to censor a local news site that's critical of the municipality?

Right now, it doesn't anything to do with content. If the government gets involved, how long is that going to remain true?

Click to expand...

Government has been involved, since before Day 1.

They've been legislating the Internet and related technologies for years -- including child pornography, copyright violations, banking, gambling, illegal drug sales, the tax status of Bitcoin, privacy and so on. It hasn't resulted in them legislating the political viewpoints of any websites.

And of course, if we take your position seriously, then it's only a matter of time before the FCC sets up the Great Firewall of the United States. Or perhaps you think that the public can stop government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies, but can't stop the government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies? :mrgreen:

Since when does government intervention stay put at any level?

Click to expand...

I listed a bunch of examples. The FCC also clearly is not on an inexorable path to widespread censorship. In fact, since you missed it, they were actually required to step back from policies like the Fairness Doctrine. Or perhaps, in your mind, that is somehow an increase of intervention...?

We should also note that government isn't the only entity here that, as a matter of course, wants to expand and seize more power. Corporations do the exact same thing, and without government oversight they have no accountability, and little motivation to do anything other than maximize profits and their grip on vendors, providers and customers alike.

No, government does not perpetually "overreach." What government does is add accountability, oversight and protection. It's not perfect, but nothing is. And it's pretty obvious that we cannot trust corporations any more or less than we can government.

I can see it now, the government will mandate that NAMBLA's web pages take priority over every other web page, as they are a protected class.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the patently ridiculous, and hysterically hysterical, hypothetical scare tactic.

And again, if this is your argument, then why isn't government control of media inevitable? Why would the FCC stop if the public pushed back against net neutrality? Won't they just come up with some other devious way to regulate our thoughts and keystrokes? Why aren't we already a totalitarian state with government control of all media? After all, the FCC has been in operation for 80 years.

No, Net Neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the Fairness doctrine, except that you are trusting the same government agency that came up with the Fairness Doctrine with your precious Net Neutrality. Frankly, they've not earned that trust, at least not from me.

Click to expand...

Odd, it sounds to me like you are starting with the assumption that "government is evil," without actually proving it -- as well as presuming that corporations are somehow benevolent and never abuse their influence or status.

By the way, you also haven't actually shown (let alone proven) that the Fairness Doctrine was a horrible policy that brought about the Destruction of Democracy As We Know It.

The development of the Internet was in fact funded by the government, research by the DoD / DARPA, but by and large, the government has kept it's fingers off of it....

Click to expand...

lol

Yeah. Except for managing the basic infrastructure, legislating it on a regular basis, getting involved in national sales tax discussions....

Besides, the temporary traffic issue that causes all this concern has been resolved....

Click to expand...

How? By Comcast strangling Netflix, until they gave in and ponied up who knows how much? By Comcast buying out Time Warner?

PeteEU said:

From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down. On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.

What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.

Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete. The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.

Click to expand...

Its not about ISP's not wanting to expand capacity for Netflix... it's about Netflix being a competitor to their other sides of their businesses. Broadband ISPs are by far controlled by cable companies. They are not only ISP's but also content providers especially with regards to video (i.e. tv and movies). They want to kill net neutrality because they want to be able to throttle sites like Netflix while smoothly streaming their own video content.

IMO the best regulation for the internet would be to put a massive broad line between a carrier and a provider. The carrier who brings the internet to your house physically can not be an ISP provider. Then the carrier would rent space on it's network to any provider which would give you, the customer, a zillion choices in ISP's and give massive rise to the ISP competition out there.

Where we are at now is carriers are the ISP's and also content providers who are buying your congressmen's favor to cement the monopoly with the destruction of net neutrality. This regulation I'm speaking of would destroy that monopolization once and for all and give you some actual choice and the competition would drive down the prices.

Visbek said:

Yes, for things like right of way, not dealing with content providers or backend infrastructure. Oh, and that's only in municipalities they care to deal with; they haven't shown much interest in servicing rural communities. Except of course when compelled to and/or subsidized by, wait for it! state and federal governments. (And even they have a tough time compelling broadband providers to offer service in rural areas.)

And how would this work, exactly? Would a small city be empowered to rip out fiber if Verizon throttled Facebook, or a small VOD provider? Are hundreds of municipalities going to police Verizon's FIOS network? What if a city decides that it doesn't want its residents to watch Internet porn? Or wants to censor a local news site that's critical of the municipality?



Government has been involved, since before Day 1.

They've been legislating the Internet and related technologies for years -- including child pornography, copyright violations, banking, gambling, illegal drug sales, the tax status of Bitcoin, privacy and so on. It hasn't resulted in them legislating the political viewpoints of any websites.

And of course, if we take your position seriously, then it's only a matter of time before the FCC sets up the Great Firewall of the United States. Or perhaps you think that the public can stop government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies, but can't stop the government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies? :mrgreen:



I listed a bunch of examples. The FCC also clearly is not on an inexorable path to widespread censorship. In fact, since you missed it, they were actually required to step back from policies like the Fairness Doctrine. Or perhaps, in your mind, that is somehow an increase of intervention...?

We should also note that government isn't the only entity here that, as a matter of course, wants to expand and seize more power. Corporations do the exact same thing, and without government oversight they have no accountability, and little motivation to do anything other than maximize profits and their grip on vendors, providers and customers alike.

No, government does not perpetually "overreach." What government does is add accountability, oversight and protection. It's not perfect, but nothing is. And it's pretty obvious that we cannot trust corporations any more or less than we can government.



Thank you for the patently ridiculous, and hysterically hysterical, hypothetical scare tactic.

And again, if this is your argument, then why isn't government control of media inevitable? Why would the FCC stop if the public pushed back against net neutrality? Won't they just come up with some other devious way to regulate our thoughts and keystrokes? Why aren't we already a totalitarian state with government control of all media? After all, the FCC has been in operation for 80 years.



Odd, it sounds to me like you are starting with the assumption that "government is evil," without actually proving it -- as well as presuming that corporations are somehow benevolent and never abuse their influence or status.

By the way, you also haven't actually shown (let alone proven) that the Fairness Doctrine was a horrible policy that brought about the Destruction of Democracy As We Know It.



lol

Yeah. Except for managing the basic infrastructure, legislating it on a regular basis, getting involved in national sales tax discussions....



How? By Comcast strangling Netflix, until they gave in and ponied up who knows how much? By Comcast buying out Time Warner?

Click to expand...

So there's no instance where greater government involved isn't a good thing? is that it?

I suppose that may be more the case if you trust government, if they don't call you stupid, if they don't lie to you to pass questionable legislation. Oh wait. We can't count on that anymore, can we? I believe your trust in government is misplaced.

eohrnberger said:

So there's no instance where greater government involved isn't a good thing? is that it?

I suppose that may be more the case if you trust government, if they don't call you stupid, if they don't lie to you to pass questionable legislation. Oh wait. We can't count on that anymore, can we? I believe your trust in government is misplaced.

Click to expand...

This poll doesn't deal with trust, but confidence is close.

Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of U.S. Gov't

Now this one deals with trust:

Trust in Government | Gallup Historical Trends

Visbek said:

Yes, for things like right of way, not dealing with content providers or backend infrastructure. Oh, and that's only in municipalities they care to deal with; they haven't shown much interest in servicing rural communities. Except of course when compelled to and/or subsidized by, wait for it! state and federal governments. (And even they have a tough time compelling broadband providers to offer service in rural areas.)

And how would this work, exactly? Would a small city be empowered to rip out fiber if Verizon throttled Facebook, or a small VOD provider? Are hundreds of municipalities going to police Verizon's FIOS network? What if a city decides that it doesn't want its residents to watch Internet porn? Or wants to censor a local news site that's critical of the municipality?



Government has been involved, since before Day 1.

They've been legislating the Internet and related technologies for years -- including child pornography, copyright violations, banking, gambling, illegal drug sales, the tax status of Bitcoin, privacy and so on. It hasn't resulted in them legislating the political viewpoints of any websites.

Click to expand...

The government funded the development of the Internet technologies, and then kept it's hands off it. They have just barely managed to get Internet based sales taxed, and not much further. All of the things that you mention are ancillary to the core issue here, which is the delivery, or lack there of, of content, which really is something that the government should keep out of, and let the private sector handle it. It's been doing pretty well so far.

Visbek said:

And of course, if we take your position seriously, then it's only a matter of time before the FCC sets up the Great Firewall of the United States. Or perhaps you think that the public can stop government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies, but can't stop the government from overreaching by pushing back against FCC policies? :mrgreen:



I listed a bunch of examples. The FCC also clearly is not on an inexorable path to widespread censorship. In fact, since you missed it, they were actually required to step back from policies like the Fairness Doctrine. Or perhaps, in your mind, that is somehow an increase of intervention...?

We should also note that government isn't the only entity here that, as a matter of course, wants to expand and seize more power. Corporations do the exact same thing, and without government oversight they have no accountability, and little motivation to do anything other than maximize profits and their grip on vendors, providers and customers alike.

No, government does not perpetually "overreach." What government does is add accountability, oversight and protection. It's not perfect, but nothing is. And it's pretty obvious that we cannot trust corporations any more or less than we can government.

Click to expand...

Well at least we can agree on that point, but between the two, let me choose between businesses I deal with. No such choice with government, so much more limited government's involvement the better, if you ask me.

Visbek said:

Thank you for the patently ridiculous, and hysterically hysterical, hypothetical scare tactic.

And again, if this is your argument, then why isn't government control of media inevitable? Why would the FCC stop if the public pushed back against net neutrality? Won't they just come up with some other devious way to regulate our thoughts and keystrokes? Why aren't we already a totalitarian state with government control of all media? After all, the FCC has been in operation for 80 years.



Odd, it sounds to me like you are starting with the assumption that "government is evil," without actually proving it -- as well as presuming that corporations are somehow benevolent and never abuse their influence or status.

By the way, you also haven't actually shown (let alone proven) that the Fairness Doctrine was a horrible policy that brought about the Destruction of Democracy As We Know It.

Click to expand...

The fairness doctrine was pushing onto the market what the market didn't want, distorting the market. Something that the government shouldn't be doing, but yet does far, far, far too often on nearly every front and impacting every industry.

Visbek said:

lol

Yeah. Except for managing the basic infrastructure, legislating it on a regular basis, getting involved in national sales tax discussions....



How? By Comcast strangling Netflix, until they gave in and ponied up who knows how much? By Comcast buying out Time Warner?

Click to expand...

Until we know the details of the business deal that resolved the conflict we don't know anything, let along even IF someone strangled someone else or even if someone caved in or not. The end result was posted in the graph earlier, the content was delivered to the end users. Problem solved, and it didn't take government involvement. Must eat you up alive that it didn't.

poweRob said:

Its not about ISP's not wanting to expand capacity for Netflix... it's about Netflix being a competitor to their other sides of their businesses. Broadband ISPs are by far controlled by cable companies. They are not only ISP's but also content providers especially with regards to video (i.e. tv and movies). They want to kill net neutrality because they want to be able to throttle sites like Netflix while smoothly streaming their own video content.

Click to expand...

I know it is, and that alone should be illegal... it is in Europe. It is called anti-competitive behavior.

IMO the best regulation for the internet would be to put a massive broad line between a carrier and a provider. The carrier who brings the internet to your house physically can not be an ISP provider. Then the carrier would rent space on it's network to any provider which would give you, the customer, a zillion choices in ISP's and give massive rise to the ISP competition out there.

Click to expand...

No the best way, would to split ISP from content providers (you actually use to have that rule as far as I remember), and put in place rules that force ISP providers to rent out capacity to anyone willing to buy it and set up a competing company. This is what we did in Europe, because that the whole infrastructure was paid by the tax payer in the first place. The old monopoly companies (AT&T in the US) were privatized and given 100 year maintenance contracts on the network and the job of expanding it. The infrastructure would still be "owned" by the state/people. This way we went from 1 company delivering phone services (and later internet) to dozens in under a decade. Competition is good, it has brought down prices considerably.. far far under what the average American pays and often for much more.

Moon said:

Of course they will. The government will use taxes, fees and regulations to create the outcome they want all in the name of fairness as they see it.

Click to expand...

Blue_State said:

We don't know how they will regulate the internet. It is still up for debate and they haven't ruled. Everything here is a what if.

Click to expand...

If there is net neutrality, no one will be able to cuss on the internet until after 9pm local time because the govt is going to "control" the internet exactly the same way that they "control" our TV programming.

Sorry I got so confused there guys.
I ****ed up and read some stuff about this issue before it became political.
I see now I was too dumb to figure out what to think on my own.
Glad I woke up and saw the light.
Thank God for politicians to explain technical ****.
Where would we be without politicians to explain **** like computer networking, science and other technical **** like that?
Politicians are all ****ing experts on this sort of technical ****.

Previously, I had believed **** I read in technical sites and crap like that.
But now that Boehner has explained that net neutrality would let the Islamo-atheistic socialists control my porn supply intarwebz I see that net neutrality os another government sponsored boogey man. Sheesh. Sometimes I am soooo dumb.
I actually thought that companies with virtual monopolies could not be trusted.
duh.

Obviously they're trustable. How else would they have ended up with virtual monopolies?
The only way to make money is through moral purity and sterling character.
So, obviously the ISPs only want what is best for us.

Like Pharoah's heart, I am obdurate sometimes.

Thank God for the ****ing politicians who are here to help us see the light.


or not w/e

eohrnberger said:

So there's no instance where greater government involved isn't a good thing? is that it?

Click to expand...

I never said there is NO instance of overreach. In fact, I would say that the statements "government never overreaches" and "government always overreaches" are both incorrect. Nor am I recommending blind faith in government.

My point is that we can rely on government to perform some types of regulation and oversight, and that we routinely benefit from such regulations.

In addition, your assertion of an inexorable slippery slope doesn't make sense. If it were true, then why isn't the Internet already heavily censored? If the answer is "the people won't allow it," then why doesn't that same force apply to keeping regulations in check and functional?

As such, I find it amusing that your answer to government overreach is... to put a different government organization (the municipalities) in charge of an interstate commerce issue like net neutrality.

I also find it downright bizarre that you categorically refuse to trust government, let alone a specific branch that seems to have a pretty good record of not overreaching for 80 years, yet you do seem to blindly trust corporations -- who exhibit the same exact tendencies (including consolidation and control), are far less transparent, and are powerfully motivated to put profits over people.

I suppose that may be more the case if you trust government, if they don't call you stupid, if they don't lie to you to pass questionable legislation. Oh wait. We can't count on that anymore, can we? I believe your trust in government is misplaced.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. Because one government bureaucrat insulted the voters, government can never be trusted? Because politicians occasionally lie -- as does every other human being on the planet -- we can't trust a government? Perhaps shouldn't have a government at all.

The smart approach, as held by the founders of this nation, are that we shouldn't trust government, but we need it anyway. The best possible option given those constraints is just to keep an eye on government, and demand as much transparency as possible.

In other words: You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're tossing out an important proposed legislation because of a hysterical fear that the government is going to do something that, per your own beliefs, it will inevitably do anyway.

Do you see why that isn't a terribly persuasive claim...?

Visbek said:

I never said there is NO instance of overreach. In fact, I would say that the statements "government never overreaches" and "government always overreaches" are both incorrect. Nor am I recommending blind faith in government.

My point is that we can rely on government to perform some types of regulation and oversight, and that we routinely benefit from such regulations.

In addition, your assertion of an inexorable slippery slope doesn't make sense. If it were true, then why isn't the Internet already heavily censored? If the answer is "the people won't allow it," then why doesn't that same force apply to keeping regulations in check and functional?

As such, I find it amusing that your answer to government overreach is... to put a different government organization (the municipalities) in charge of an interstate commerce issue like net neutrality.

I also find it downright bizarre that you categorically refuse to trust government, let alone a specific branch that seems to have a pretty good record of not overreaching for 80 years, yet you do seem to blindly trust corporations -- who exhibit the same exact tendencies (including consolidation and control), are far less transparent, and are powerfully motivated to put profits over people.



So let me get this straight. Because one government bureaucrat insulted the voters, government can never be trusted? Because politicians occasionally lie -- as does every other human being on the planet -- we can't trust a government? Perhaps shouldn't have a government at all.

The smart approach, as held by the founders of this nation, are that we shouldn't trust government, but we need it anyway. The best possible option given those constraints is just to keep an eye on government, and demand as much transparency as possible.

In other words: You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're tossing out an important proposed legislation because of a hysterical fear that the government is going to do something that, per your own beliefs, it will inevitably do anyway.

Do you see why that isn't a terribly persuasive claim...?

Click to expand...

we shouldn't trust government, but we need it anyway
That is excellent!