• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FCC looks at ways to assert authority over Web access

Why shouldn't Comcast block BitTorrent if it costs them money and is used mostly for intellectual property theft?

I don't want the FCC controlling the internet even if their intention is to reduce restrictions. Why? Because there will eventually be a conservative president, and they already kicked Howard Stern off my radio.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying artists don't mind if you steal their work? Are you saying once something is made it should be freely distributed? Or is it the term "intellectual property" you have a problem with?

It is this disingenuous attempt to give physical property the same qualities and attributes as physical property, and crimes with physical property that bugs the hell out of me.
 
It's so funny how Republicans manage to get people to work toward their own oppression, as this post demonstrates. One of the more obvious things they do is to get people to believe that the 'enemy' is doing something, when in fact they are making that accusation to deflect attention from the fact that they (the Republicans) are doing the very thing they are accusing the enemy of doing!! They are very good at this, and getting better at it.


It is the Republicans who use 'doublespeak'. It is the Republicans who are working toward a less free Internet. It is the Republican who want to 'Control'.

All the while accusing the Democrats of doing so. And people believe it. Amazing.

People believe what they want to believe when they are closed minded sheep. If they want to believe Obama is bad, they will, when discussing an issue about keeping the internet free from content being blocked or sites being slowed down. When they are shown that actually the Obama admin and the FCC want to keep the internet as we've always known it and protect it, they will ignore the facts and keep spreading lies and GOP talking points that have nothing to do with the truth. This is how the right wing mind works.
 
I don't understand your point. Are you saying artists don't mind if you steal their work? Are you saying once something is made it should be freely distributed? Or is it the term "intellectual property" you have a problem with?


It is this attempt to give physical property the same qualities and attributes as physical property, and trying to equate crimes with data with crimes to physical property that bugs the hell out of me. It is disingenuous to boot on the levels of debating legalities and technical advancement.
 
It is this attempt to give physical property the same qualities and attributes as physical property, and trying to equate crimes with data with crimes to physical property that bugs the hell out of me. It is disingenuous to boot on the levels of debating legalities and technical advancement.

Well there certainly seems to be a moral difference between stealing a car and stealing a movie, at least for a lot of people. But sneaking into a concert or movie theater has always been illegal. It's not property theft exactly, but it is similar to theft of services.
 
As per peoples arguments over newspapers dying...

Isn't this an evolution of technology and if the media producers cant stick with it they should die?

Or maybe they're not considered 'liberal' so we haven't heard that one yet.
 
Yes, there are 5 commissioners, appointed for 5 year terms, so I would guess that 4 of the 5 are Bush appointees. Now, can you show me where it says they are under the direction of Obama, because I cannot find it. In other words, can you document your claim?

I don't have to document it, the White House already has.

Federal Executive Branch: USA.gov

The FCC is listed as part of the Executive Branch under "Independent Commissions and Governmental Corporations". That's the same group where the CIA resides, as well as the EPA, and NASA. The President also nominates, (as you stated) the FCC commissioners and then appoints one of those commissioners as the "Chairman".

The LA Times didn't seem to be confused about the FCC's role in the following article where they clearly identify the FCC is going to go where Obama wants them to:

LA Times said:
That the FCC is looking at reevaluating how it measures media could be a good or bad thing for the industry depending on what direction the Obama administration wants to take. The consensus is that his FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, will look more harshly on media concentration than the Bush and Clinton administrations did.

LINK


So just to be clear - are you saying that the FCC Chairman reports to no-one in the Federal Government and has independent power to do whatever he/she wants to do with consensus from the other 4 commissioners? Or are you saying they report to some other branch of government?
 
I don't have to document it, the White House already has.

Federal Executive Branch: USA.gov

The FCC is listed as part of the Executive Branch under "Independent Commissions and Governmental Corporations". That's the same group where the CIA resides, as well as the EPA, and NASA. The President also nominates, (as you stated) the FCC commissioners and then appoints one of those commissioners as the "Chairman".

The LA Times didn't seem to be confused about the FCC's role in the following article where they clearly identify the FCC is going to go where Obama wants them to:



LINK


So just to be clear - are you saying that the FCC Chairman reports to no-one in the Federal Government and has independent power to do whatever he/she wants to do with consensus from the other 4 commissioners? Or are you saying they report to some other branch of government?

You might want to go back and read your source. Nowhere on it does it list the FCC. Now, if you go to the FCC webpage, you find this description:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

Source: About the Federal Communications Commission

Further research led me to wiki: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government]Independent agencies of the United States government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Independent agencies can be distinguished from the federal executive departments and other executive agencies by their structural and functional characteristics.[1] Congress can also designate certain agencies explicitly as "independent" in the governing statute, but the functional differences have more legal significance.[2]

While most executive agencies have a single director, administrator, or secretary appointed by the President of the United States, independent agencies almost always have a commission, board, or similar collegial body consisting of five to seven members who share power over the agency.[1] (This is why many independent agencies include the word "Commission" or "Board" in their name). The President appoints the commissioners or board members, subject to Senate confirmation, but they often serve with staggered terms, and often for longer terms than a usual four-year Presidential term,[3] meaning most Presidents will not have the opportunity to appoint all the commissioners of a given independent agency. Normally the President can designate which Commissioner will serve as the Chairperson.[3] Normally there are statutory provisions limiting the President's authority to remove commissioners, typically for incapacity, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or other good cause.[4] In addition, most independent agencies have a statutory requirement of bipartisan membership on the commission, so the President cannot simply fill vacancies with members of his own political party.[3]

Now, the FCC and most other independent agencies are considered to be part of the executive branch, but by design, they do not answer to the president. Some examples of other independent agencies will highlight this:

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission
The Federal Election Commission (FEC)
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Notice that in these cases, they do not turn to the president for direction.

So, to summarize, the FCC is not on the page you linked, and the reason is it is an independent agency.
 
You might want to go back and read your source. Nowhere on it does it list the FCC.



So, to summarize, the FCC is not on the page you linked, and the reason is it is an independent agency.

It lists the FCC under "Independent Agencies and Government Corporations" which is under the Executive Branch... I mean it's clear as day so your argument has no bearing or relevance. It's a fact, it IS part of the Executive Branch.

It IS linked on the page I provided:

Home > Agencies > Federal Executive Branch > Independent Agencies and Government Corporations

The nomination of the FCC reports to the President, who is the leader of the Executive Branch.


So let me ask: Who does the FCC Chairman report to in the Federal Government or are you saying the FCC reports to no one?
 
It lists the FCC under "Independent Agencies and Government Corporations" which is under the Executive Branch... I mean it's clear as day so your argument has no bearing or relevance. It's a fact, it IS part of the Executive Branch.

It IS linked on the page I provided:

Home > Agencies > Federal Executive Branch > Independent Agencies and Government Corporations

The nomination of the FCC reports to the President, who is the leader of the Executive Branch.


So let me ask: Who does the FCC Chairman report to in the Federal Government or are you saying the FCC reports to no one?

Oh, I see why you did not link to the actual right page, it would have made your argument look weak.
 
Councilman - really. Does this have anything to do with the topic?

The FCC wants the authority to keep ISPs from blocking or downgrading internet traffic based on its use or source - as per the original topic of this thread.

So the FCC wants to ensure that your ISP cannot interfere with traffic to favor its own content or the content of those companies that wish to pay for enhanced services.

This seems so basic to me - perhaps I am missing something here? Are you suggesting that we rely on the good will of Comcast and ATT to keep things fair? Especially considering that these companies have monopolies on broad band cable in many parts of the country?

Cable Television: An Unnatural Monopoly

Cable Monopoly In the Making? Sure Looks That Way - Project Partners Wanted News Story

It has everything to do with this topic because it goes to control of the only media source Obama and his Socialist disciples can't control yet, and history says that part of any manipulation of the population and of the truth through propaganda requires that control.
Look at what Hugo Chavez has done and is doing.

Of course you Obama worshipers can't see it because you're all brain washed into believing his lies and double speak. It is all part of the agenda to wreck this nation. He already has control over all TV news and most print and that is clear in their refusal to tell the truth about anything he does.
 
Oh, I see why you did not link to the actual right page, it would have made your argument look weak.

The reason you won't answer my question is because you're 100% wrong. Have a nice day!

Here it is again, in case you want to try to make yourself save some face:


So let me ask: Who does the FCC Chairman report to in the Federal Government or are you saying the FCC reports to no one?
 
The FCC works for Obama.

Since we've established that Obama does indeed direct the FCC, there's some questions as to why he's not putting in his own appointees. The delay factor of Obama is curious. It may be that a change just isn't necessary for the FCC to push the White House position.

But what is the White House position? Is it really to put more control over the internet like they did over telecommunications and radio?
 
It has everything to do with this topic because it goes to control of the only media source Obama and his Socialist disciples can't control yet, and history says that part of any manipulation of the population and of the truth through propaganda requires that control.
Look at what Hugo Chavez has done and is doing.

Of course you Obama worshipers can't see it because you're all brain washed into believing his lies and double speak. It is all part of the agenda to wreck this nation. He already has control over all TV news and most print and that is clear in their refusal to tell the truth about anything he does.

First he is a Nazi, now a socialist, what will you call him next in this thread, an evil space alien?
 
Since we've established that Obama does indeed direct the FCC, there's some questions as to why he's not putting in his own appointees. The delay factor of Obama is curious. It may be that a change just isn't necessary for the FCC to push the White House position.

But what is the White House position? Is it really to put more control over the internet like they did over telecommunications and radio?

Actually, you have failed entirely to do this. Obama can appoint commissioners, and can appoint a commissioner as chairman, but you entirely failed to show that Obama directs the FCC. Does Obama direct the Fed? How about the FEC? These are the same type of independent agencies as the FCC.
 
Just for some clarification for this thread, the FCC was looking into and supporting Net Neutrality all the way back to Febuary of 2008.

FCC says will act on Web neutrality if needed | Reuters

That makes sense since the appointees from Bush are still there. But that also means that the White House position has not changed though the President has changed. I rather like the internet being a 21st century wild west in some aspects... I'd hate to see it tied down with internet police.
 
That makes sense since the appointees from Bush are still there. But that also means that the White House position has not changed though the President has changed. I rather like the internet being a 21st century wild west in some aspects... I'd hate to see it tied down with internet police.

The FCC is not trying to tie it down, they are trying to make it so that ISPs can't tie it down.
 
I rather like the internet being a 21st century wild west in some aspects... I'd hate to see it tied down with internet police.

Yet it is the ISPs, not the FCC, trying to tie down the internet. The ISPs are the ones trying to censor websites.

Did you not read the article?
 
Yet it is the ISPs, not the FCC, trying to tie down the internet. The ISPs are the ones trying to censor websites.

Did you not read the article?

Ultimately ISP's can do whatever they choose per their own Terms and Conditions. If said ISP wanted to restrict and censor websites they could do that - however, that would drive a portion of their users to their competitors who do not censor. Therefore, they appeal to the FCC... whether or not the ISP want or do not want to do is irrelevant, since it comes down to the FCC to pass or not pass restrictions upon all.
 
Ultimately ISP's can do whatever they choose per their own Terms and Conditions. If said ISP wanted to restrict and censor websites they could do that - however, that would drive a portion of their users to their competitors who do not censor.

Do you know how little competition there is in the ISP realm? Few people have the luxury of multiple providers, often because of local monopolies. I'd cheerfully switch from Comcast if I had the opportunity, but I don't. Also, they are using cables subsidized by taxpayers, so its reasonable for us to have some say in how they are used.
 
Do you know how little competition there is in the ISP realm? Few people have the luxury of multiple providers, often because of local monopolies. I'd cheerfully switch from Comcast if I had the opportunity, but I don't. Also, they are using cables subsidized by taxpayers, so its reasonable for us to have some say in how they are used.

It depends upon where you live. I live in a very densely populated state. I have Comcast, multiple DSL options, and data fiber options. So for me, and I would expect most of the North Eastern states, there are multiple options. Now that may not be the same in West Virgina, or Tennessee, or Nebraska, or Idaho. I think having a say is fine - but my point stands: Comcast can come out tomorrow and change their T&C's to say "no more bittorrent sites", they filter it at the network level, and no one can get there any longer. People who do have options will leave, others may (shudder) go back to dial-up in protest, others may seek alternatives like 3G data plans or setup a community WiFi with a T1 data connection with "dues" like I did in college.

But I get your point and you do actually have options other than land based data - free WiFi and 3G data or even Wireless Edge network like EVDO is a slower option but an option.
 
Back
Top Bottom