Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93

Thread: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

  1. #71
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    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.
    I've often laughed at, derided, and despised Beck fans, but this is the first time that I've actually pitied them. He's waving his arms about how they are trying to steal your puppy, but while you're watching him do that his corporate sponsors are actually walking away with your puppy.

    This FCC ruling isn't creating Net Neutrality, it's destroying it. Net Neutrality is EXACTLY what you want if your goal is real freedom of speech and real freedom of the press. Imagine this scenario, because it's literally a legal possibility after this ruling:

    Your internet provider as part of its basic package gives you the normal high-speed connection to specific websites. Websites that have paid them off sufficiently. Foxnews.com, however, hasn't worked out this deal with your provider, so you can only access their website at 56k speeds. Not to fret, Barbbtx, you can access msnbc.com at full speed as part of the package! For a mere $5/month extra, you can access our deluxe news package, which gives you CNN, Fox News, AP, HuffPo, the Washington Times, and the NYT, all at full speed! Like netflix? For only $10/month, you can get your netflix streaming uncapped so that you can actually watch their content. Hey, our video streaming service is only $5/month! Wouldn't you rather subscribe to that?

    This ruling isn't government taking power over the internet, it's the government handing that power over to ISPs who have a near-monopoly on services. Using infrastructure, by the way, that you the taxpayer paid for. Net neutrality isn't talked about much because you essentially have it right now. This thing that isn't broken? That's net neutrality. That's being taken away from you under the guise of protecting it.

    You're letting your hatred for socialists cloud your judgment. A socialist said he's for it, therefore it must be bad. That may usually work for you, but this time the socialist is literally arguing in favor of free speech, but you've sided against him because he's a socialist.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-23-10 at 09:36 PM.
    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.

  2. #72
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I've often laughed at, derided, and despised Beck fans, but this is the first time that I've actually pitied them. He's waving his arms about how they are trying to steal your puppy, but while you're watching him do that his corporate sponsors are actually walking away with your puppy.

    This FCC ruling isn't creating Net Neutrality, it's destroying it. Net Neutrality is EXACTLY what you want if your goal is real freedom of speech and real freedom of the press. Imagine this scenario, because it's literally a legal possibility after this ruling:

    Your internet provider as part of its basic package gives you the normal high-speed connection to specific websites. Websites that have paid them off sufficiently. Foxnews.com, however, hasn't worked out this deal with your provider, so you can only access their website at 56k speeds. Not to fret, Barbbtx, you can access msnbc.com at full speed as part of the package! For a mere $5/month extra, you can access our deluxe news package, which gives you CNN, Fox News, AP, HuffPo, the Washington Times, and the NYT, all at full speed! Like netflix? For only $10/month, you can get your netflix streaming uncapped so that you can actually watch their content. Hey, our video streaming service is only $5/month! Wouldn't you rather subscribe to that?

    This ruling isn't government taking power over the internet, it's the government handing that power over to ISPs who have a near-monopoly on services. Using infrastructure, by the way, that you the taxpayer paid for. Net neutrality isn't talked about much because you essentially have it right now. This thing that isn't broken? That's net neutrality. That's being taken away from you under the guise of protecting it.

    You're letting your hatred for socialists cloud your judgment. A socialist said he's for it, therefore it must be bad. That may usually work for you, but this time the socialist is literally arguing in favor of free speech, but you've sided against him because he's a socialist.

    This is nearly a 180 degrees separated from what two FCC commissioners said.

    Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

    Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.


    It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

    Robert M. McDowell: The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com
    BRIAN SULLIVAN, GUEST HOST: Republican lawmakers vowing to fight what they are calling a job killer today. In a partisan vote, right along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission approving new Internet regulations. My next guest one of the two commissioners who voted against the move, fearing what it might bring next.

    Robert McDowell with the FCC joining us now.

    Mr. McDowell, thank you very much for joining us.

    There is a concern that this new rule will allow service providers, Comcast, Verizon, whoever it might be, to charge what they want. Do you believe that Internet bills are going to go up?

    ROBERT MCDOWELL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: nbsp; Well, what this does, actually, for the first time ever, it injects the government into these types of decision. It injects the government into Internet regulation.

    And the perverse effect could be higher rates for consumers. It could be less investment. It could be less innovation in the Internet space. There is nothing broken in the Internet space. The government doesn’t need to be doing this.

    And the unintended consequences and costs are really at risk here.

    SULLIVAN: So, why is the FCC getting involved at all? And you clearly view it as an overstepping of FCC authority. Tell us more on why.

    MCDOWELL: Right. Commissioner Baker and I both dissented. First of all, the FCC is defying a court and defying a large bipartisan majority of Congress. When was the last time you heard those words strung together, where there was a large bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something?

    And the FCC is also defying a court order from April, this past April 6, at the D.C. Court of Appeals here, the federal court in Washington, D.C.

    So, this is going to put the FCC on a collision course with Congress and the courts. And it’s going to cause years of litigation and create a lot of uncertainty in the broadband market and the Internet market in general, where there was no uncertainty before.

    SULLIVAN: Some say, though, there are positives, right, that you cannot now block access, that there is equal Web access, and that it is basically an extension of free speech even more on the Internet. Are their upsides to this rule?

    MCDOWELL: Actually, there really aren’t.

    First of all, the Internet is open and freedom-enhancing, has been since it was privatized in 1994. And it’s become that way under current law, under the current bipartisan and international consensus that governments should keep their hands off of the Internet -- current until today, that is. So, that’s number one.

    Number two; there are ample laws on the books that protect consumers, antitrust laws, consumer protection laws, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice. Both are really quite well-equipped to protect consumers, should a broadband provider act in an anti-competitive way.

    So, there’s nothing to broken to be fixed. This is unnecessary. Laws already are on the books that protect consumers. And there are going to be really some adverse unintended consequences here.

    FCC Approves Plan to Regulate Internet - FoxNews.com
    this is little more than a naked power grab that was struck down by the courts 8 months ago, and will be again.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #73
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    This is nearly a 180 degrees separated from what two FCC commissioners said.
    You highlight a large bipartisan majority and then go around talking about how liberals support this.

    Net Neutrality: Good for business, good for free speech, good for the consumer
    This ruling: Good for certain telcoms, bad for free speech, bad for the consumer.




    this is little more than a naked power grab that was struck down by the courts 8 months ago, and will be again.


    j-mac
    I should ****ing hope so.

    It's a money grab by certain ISPs, not a power grab by SCARY GOVERNMENT.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-26-10 at 12:59 AM.
    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.

  4. #74
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You highlight a large bipartisan majority and then go around talking about how liberals support this.

    Net Neutrality: Good for business, good for free speech, good for the consumer
    This ruling: Good for certain telcoms, bad for free speech, bad for the consumer.






    I should ****ing hope so.

    It's a money grab by certain ISPs, not a power grab by SCARY GOVERNMENT.

    Sorry, but the FCC doesn't make law, and I don't want them to. I am for smaller government, you on the other hand clearly are not.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #75
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Sorry, but the FCC doesn't make law, and I don't want them to. I am for smaller government, you on the other hand clearly are not.


    j-mac
    So we're just ignoring the part where I said I hope the ruling gets overturned, then. How does one argue against a position that somehow manages to perceive the opposite of reality?

    Net neutrality protects your freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Period. If that's your idea of "big government," then I suppose I favor big government.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-27-10 at 08:23 PM.
    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.

  6. #76
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So we're just ignoring the part where I said I hope the ruling gets overturned, then.

    My apologies if I missed that part. I don't want to misrepresent you.

    How does one argue against a position that somehow manages to perceive the opposite of reality?
    Do you often project those that disagree with you and displaying a lack of reality?


    Net neutrality protects your freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Period.

    That seems rather absolute, you'll forgive me if I remain skeptical?


    If that's your idea of "big government," then I suppose I favor big government.

    The aspects of this are up for debate, and where they should be debated is in the congress. My idea of "Big Government" is when a regulatory body like the FCC doesn't like that the congress is not acting, and has been rebuffed by the courts, goes through with a ruling anyway. That may not be "Big Government" but it is authoritarian.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #77
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    My apologies if I missed that part. I don't want to misrepresent you.
    You said it would probably be overturned, and I said "I should ****ing hope so."

    Do you often project those that disagree with you and displaying a lack of reality?
    Many conservatives, due to the things they're being told by Beck/Limbaugh, think that Net Neutrality is a bad thing. That it is some sort of internet version of radio equality deal. It's not. They think Net Neutrality is somehow designed to push liberal views over conservative views. That's not how it works. That view is the polar opposite of reality. It's not my projection or my opinion, it's reality. Up is down. Black is white.

    That seems rather absolute, you'll forgive me if I remain skeptical?
    You can remain skeptical if you like, but Net Neutrality is really simple. Net Neutrality means that data is data. Essentially, the ISPs are required to be blind. 10GB from NetFlix is the same as 10GB from FoxNews.com or 10GB from scatporntorrents.com.

    The aspects of this are up for debate, and where they should be debated is in the congress. My idea of "Big Government" is when a regulatory body like the FCC doesn't like that the congress is not acting, and has been rebuffed by the courts, goes through with a ruling anyway. That may not be "Big Government" but it is authoritarian.
    The FCC's ruling does not actually create Net Neutrality. (the opposite, really) Maybe that's where you're drawing the confusion. Net Neutrality is anti-authoritarian, as it would ensure that no entity, private or public, could treat data from msnbc.com any differently than it treats data from foxnews.com. No entity could charge you more for data from foxnews.com than from msnbc.com. The FCC's ruling really does exactly the opposite. Your ISP can now charge you an extra fee to get data from foxnews.com and not charge you that fee for msnbc.com, with the express intent of funneling subcribers towards msnbc.com instead of foxnews.com. Net Neutrality would have prevented this.

    There is a de-facto monopoly on that last-mile piece of cable that delivers internet data to your home. That cable was largely paid for with your money. Taxpayers funded this infrastructure. We paid tax dollars to fund all these highways we have around, imagine if those same construction companies could arbitrarily plant a toll booth on your driveway. You paid for them to build that residential street, and now they have the ability to selectively charge an extra fee to anyone going in and out of your driveway. They like Toyota, so Toyota vehicles get a pass. You like GM cars? Parking fee $10.99/month. It's your goddamned driveway, they're your goddamned roads, but the FCC has given this power to ISPs, who, by the way, have a government-sanctioned monopoly in most markets.

    The worst part is, it's not you, the subscriber, who is really going to shoulder the burden. It's the little guy with his little website who can't afford to pay off a multibillion dollar ISP that is really going to suffer. The internet small business man is going to be stuck with 56k speeds for his website. Bestbuy.com can pay off the ISPs for access to the fast lane. Can Joe's Web Shop?
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-29-10 at 02:24 AM.
    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.

  8. #78
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by theangryamerican View Post
    Thanks to Zyphlin for the explanation. This is getting ridiculous. The cost of my internet has already gone up $40 a month in the past 3 years (Nothing about the service has changed except for the amount I pay for it) I'm really starting to wish there was some way for me to kick Comcast to the curb and still get my internet fix.

    I'm almost to the point where I would rather the service providers just open everyone up to the highest practical speed and charge us strictly for use, like the water or electrical company does. I'm tired of being told your monthly cost will be X and then receiving a bill for x plus y and z random fees.
    You can go with satellite.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Has no one mentioned the other big nasty thing the FCC move will create?

    Metered Internet. I.E. back to the bad old days of charge by the byte (or in our case GB but still).

    Hopefully between the GOP and the Courts we can quash this bugger right fast.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  10. #80
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: FCC set to back Internet traffic rules

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You can go with satellite.
    Not nearly as reliable, far slower speeds than traditional forms of broadband, horrible latency, and still not available in all areas so its not really an answer. In my former apartment building, based on the location I was at, my options was Cox...Cox...and Cox

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 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
  •