Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 93

Thread: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

  1. #61
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    PolitiFact | Cass Sunstein once considered a "Fairness Doctrine" of sorts for the Internet, but then thought better of it

    Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar wanted a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet where he suggested the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views. He later pulled this from his re-work of the book because it would be "too difficult to regulate" and "almost certainly unconstitutional". Almost certainly? How about most definitely. I could go on and on about Cass Sunstein, but that's for a different thread.

    Sure, he no longer feels this way, or does he? I am a huge supporter of repealing the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. I realize that in all likelihood it will never happen, but my belief in what our founders wanted and how the 17th Amendment goes vehemently against that hasn't and will never change. I'm not going to stop supporting the repeal because it would be "too difficult to accomplish". The fact that Sunstein stated openly that he believed government should require sites to link to opposing views should trouble everyone.
    This man is not to be trusted when it comes to freedom of speech.
    Heading to Oxford Univ. for Forum on “Child Protection, Free Speech and the Internet”

    argues that unrestrained individual choice is dangerous and must be checked or countered in the interests of “citizenship” and “democracy.” In his own words: “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.
    Sunstein’s argument is highly elitist. To Sunstein, the Internet is apparently guilty of the unspeakable crime of offering citizens and consumers too much of exactly what they want! But, according to his logic, the masses just don’t know what’s good for them so they must be aggressively encouraged (and potentially forced) to listen to things that others — namely, Sunstein — want them to hear.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  2. #62
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    Deuce, Redress and I are having a conversation and I don't listen to Limbaugh. Any time the federal government decides to "regulate" something, it is taking power away from the people. Maybe you should let the adults converse while you go play in the backyard with the other little boys and girls.
    The issue however with this...which Deuce is right, is nothing like the fairness doctrine...is that its the government taking power away from the people which created, in part, the scenario we have now. The government did a half-ass job with regards to telecoms, which leaves us in a position where the telecoms have a pseudo-monopoly granted by the government. So the only two options is remove that pseudo-monopoly protection or actually regulate to some point the monoploy's you've created. Sadly, if we're dealing with reality...which, since you point out "adults" are talking, is what adults need to actuall deal with...the reality is its highly unlikely that they're going to break up the telecom's monopolies anytime soon. Which leaves us with either the choice of the monopolies screwing us (which they've given indication they very much want to) or giving the government FURTHER regulatory power that may screw us (as history tells us).

    For me, I'll take the chance over the near guarantee.

    i think the best bet would be very, very simple net neutrality rules stating that the speed one accesses data may be tiered and decided as a broad package, however that access to various sites or services must all be charged equally and given connection speeds. Essentially, as was stated above, that 1 MB of data is 1 MB of a data regardless of where it comes from and can not be treated differently...be it due to speed, or due to price...based on what that 1 MB is.

    The only similarity really between the fairness doctrine and the topic of this thread is the fact they both are references to regulation of communication. Beyond that though there is little if any true similarities between the two.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    i think the best bet would be very, very simple net neutrality rules stating that the speed one accesses data may be tiered and decided as a broad package, however that access to various sites or services must all be charged equally and given connection speeds. Essentially, as was stated above, that 1 MB of data is 1 MB of a data regardless of where it comes from and can not be treated differently...be it due to speed, or due to price...based on what that 1 MB is.
    It seems the likely outcome of such a regulation is a slower internet and/or higher costs for everybody.

    No longer are companies able to block access to P2P connections or restrict the rates of streaming media -- which is what constitutes the vast majority of internet traffic now, and will only eat greater shares of traffic in the future. Removing stopgaps will most certainly increase the demand for bandwidth -- if my file sharing and streaming is fast, I'm going to use it more.

    Thus, we've got much greater demand for bandwidth, which to an evil service provider like Comcast, means slower service. No doubt people will complain when they're consistently receiving only a fraction of the 12MBps service they've paid for -- which means Comcast will need to pay for more "pipes" (and pass the cost to the consumer) or increase the costs of their tiers.
    Last edited by Taylor; 12-22-10 at 05:20 PM.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Hey, here's an idea -- simply switch to some "pay as you go" model like you have on cell phones. The first XX Megabytes are free, susequent usage becomes more and more expensive. P2P becomes quite costly. So does streaming.

    Hmm... suddenly Netflix and Amazon aren't too threatening anymore.

  5. #65
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,325
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Wait...Amazon is one of the big bandwidth hogs now?

    Learn something new every day. Is it because of Kindle?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #66
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,799

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Hey, here's an idea -- simply switch to some "pay as you go" model like you have on cell phones. The first XX Megabytes are free, susequent usage becomes more and more expensive. P2P becomes quite costly. So does streaming.

    Hmm... suddenly Netflix and Amazon aren't too threatening anymore.
    Couple problems with this:
    -The market quickly decided that pay-as-you-go was incredibly unpopular. Once companies started offering unlimited services, people flocked to that.
    -Also, the web is now incredibly different than it used to be. People don't have an easy method of knowing or projecting how much bandwidth they're going to use. Websites have tons of content on them now, you even see advertisements with small videos embedded in websites now. People aren't going to like being charged extra to watch advertisements.
    -Volume of data transfer is less important than rate of transfer, as far as infrastructure goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Wait...Amazon is one of the big bandwidth hogs now?

    Learn something new every day. Is it because of Kindle?
    Amazon does video on demand services.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #67
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    It seems the likely outcome of such a regulation is a slower internet and/or higher costs for everybody.
    Quite possibly. Or more companies do what Verizon is doing and actually fulfilling their end of the bargain for using the pipes that WE pretty much paid for, and that was investing in next gen connection technology allowing for better bandwidth.

    No longer are companies able to block access to P2P connections or restrict the rates of streaming media -- which is what constitutes the vast majority of internet traffic now, and will only eat greater shares of traffic in the future. Removing stopgaps will most certainly increase the demand for bandwidth -- if my file sharing and streaming is fast, I'm going to use it more.
    As you should. Why the hell would I want to pay for 25 MBps speed if all I'm doing is browsing a text based forum or checking email. I'm paying for the higher speeds so I can play games, watch videos, and download items.

    Thus, we've got much greater demand for bandwidth, which to an evil service provider like Comcast, means slower service. No doubt people will complain when they're consistently receiving only a fraction of the 12MBps service they've paid for -- which means Comcast will need to pay for more "pipes" (and pass the cost to the consumer) or increase the costs of their tiers.
    Which is sadly still better than the alternative, and is a situation coming about because Comcast and others like them have taken the "pipes" that WE largely helped subsidize for granted, raking in higher and higher profits without reinvesting into next gen technology and better "pipes".

    Or, what's more likely...other companies will realize the success Verizon has had going to fiber and possibly actually finally start investing their money to follow suit.

    Those pipes aren't theirs, not solely, and they're easily as largely responsible for the congestion as individual users are for never taking the time, energy, and resources to reinvest into better pipes. If not for regulation we, the consumers, would get screwed anyways because they ****ed up and wouldn't have to deal with their ****up

  8. #68
    Can't stop the signal...
    theangryamerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    07-29-13 @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,233

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Found this website to be a pretty interesting and straight forward explanation of the topic:The Open Internet: A Case for Net Neutrality
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  9. #69
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    I admit, I'm worried. I was just listening to Fox's straight news. (no mention of Glenn Beck) they were talking about how 300 congressmen were against this They also mentioned George Soros, Bill Moyers, McChesney, Free Press
    The talked about how the internet is not broke and they don't know how or why the FCC was able to push this thing forward. And that it will take 2 yrs now to take it to the SCOTUS and get it overturned.
    I then found this where Glenn Beck was warning us of this back in April. He also talks about McChesney, and quotes from this guy are pretty scary.


    'Glenn Beck': Net Neutrality Pits Free Speech Against Free Press - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

    Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean the Marxist isn't after my internet.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  10. #70
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    I'm waiting for the information to come out that shows this to be nothing but backdoor censorship of the internet. It's only a matter of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •