F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

[Deuce]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/technology/fcc-releases-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday released extensive details of how it would regulate broadband Internet providers as a public utility, producing official wording that almost certainly sets the stage for extended legal fights.

We could read further on what the NYT says about it, but I much prefer the original source.

Here are the 400 pages of terrifying government takeover of the internet, wherein now only the government will be allowed to sell internet access and they will assume direct control over all content.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Not that any of that is actually written into these rules, of course.

As I suggested many times in earlier discussions, and was met with vehement disagreement from the right-wingers here, the order does not apply any and all Title II regulations blindly. I was scoffed at when I suggested that the FCC can waive rules in areas they don't make sense to apply. I was right.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, for now we do forbear in part from the first sentence of
section 254(d) and our associated rules insofar as they would immediately require new universal service
contributions associated with broadband Internet access service.

So, the scary internet tax is out. Numerous other provisions are exempted as well.

Our Republican friend on the FCC really wanted us to see this scary 400 page document? The bulk of it is just long-winded explanation of what it has chosen to do and why, much of which is actually electing not to apply many of the Title II regulations.

I haven't gotten through all of it yet, but I'm not seeing the end of the world here. Maybe some of the people predicting doomsday can point out specifically where the internet as we know it is going to dramatically change.

 

[CMPancake]

What's that, Ted Cruz and the other talking heads like Ron Paul were wrong? Shocker...

 

[Thrilla]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/technology/fcc-releases-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0



We could read further on what the NYT says about it, but I much prefer the original source.

Here are the 400 pages of terrifying government takeover of the internet, wherein now only the government will be allowed to sell internet access and they will assume direct control over all content.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Not that any of that is actually written into these rules, of course.

As I suggested many times in earlier discussions, and was met with vehement disagreement from the right-wingers here, the order does not apply any and all Title II regulations blindly. I was scoffed at when I suggested that the FCC can waive rules in areas they don't make sense to apply. I was right.


So, the scary internet tax is out. Numerous other provisions are exempted as well.

Our Republican friend on the FCC really wanted us to see this scary 400 page document? The bulk of it is just long-winded explanation of what it has chosen to do and why, much of which is actually electing not to apply many of the Title II regulations.

I haven't gotten through all of it yet, but I'm not seeing the end of the world here. Maybe some of the people predicting doomsday can point out specifically where the internet as we know it is going to dramatically change.

I had no doubts the FCC would "pick and choose" Title II regulations accordingly...my thing was always about whether they have the the express authority to do so.


but whatever... it'll all get hammered out in court... provided the administration doesn't try to bypass the judicial branch as well.

 

[Excon]

As I suggested many times in earlier discussions, and was met with vehement disagreement from the right-wingers here, the order does not apply any and all Title II regulations blindly. I was scoffed at when I suggested that the FCC can waive rules in areas they don't make sense to apply. I was right.

If you are speaking about arguing with me; No. :naughty You are misstating what occurred.

Once the information was known that they may not immediately apply the tax, it wasn't argued that it would immediately be charged. But the tax still does apply as a Class II Utility as the rules require.

Just what do you think "for now we do forbear" means?
Let me clue you in, classifying it as they did still opens it up to be taxed as you were told.

 

[Excon]

What's that, Ted Cruz and the other talking heads like Ron Paul were wrong? Shocker...

How does "for now" mean they were wrong?
It doesn't.
It means that classifying it as such still opens it up to be taxed.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

This is great news. As far as I can tell, all of the people against net neutrality are either jerks who want to screw up the Internet for profit or idiots who believe that jerks when they cover up their greed with lies about "protecting innovation" and "preventing government overreach". Like I said, this is great news and I'm glad to see that the "right" side won.

 

[Renae]

This is great news. As far as I can tell, all of the people against net neutrality are either jerks who want to screw up the Internet for profit or idiots who believe that jerks when they cover up their greed with lies about "protecting innovation" and "preventing government overreach". Like I said, this is great news and I'm glad to see that the "right" side won.

You say this now. I bet you think the ACA was only half right in fixing things too, needs more government.

 

[ToastyOats]

What's that, Ted Cruz and the other talking heads like Ron Paul were wrong? Shocker...

Ted Cruz was wrong at about Net Neutrality being "Obamacare For The Internet".

 

[joko104]

The government took control of the Internet so ultimately it will decide who is allowed and who isn't - with this being determined by political contributions, kickbacks and graft.

 

[CMPancake]

How does "for now" mean they were wrong?
It doesn't.
It means that classifying it as such still opens it up to be taxed.

Ted Cruz said Net Neutrality was Obamacare of the internet, and Ron Paul accused this ruling to be a government hijacking of the internet. Neither of these are proven to be true, and nor has their been any tax included on internet users. You can rag out this "they're gonna tax the internet" ****ck all you like, but I know you're well aware that it isn't the least bit true.

The government took control of the Internet so ultimately it will decide who is allowed and who isn't - with this being determined by political contributions, kickbacks and graft.

None of this is the least bit true. Come join us in reality, we have wi-fi here.

 

[Excon]

Ted Cruz said Net Neutrality was Obamacare of the internet, and Ron Paul accused this ruling to be a government hijacking of the internet. Neither of these are proven to be true, and nor has their been any tax included on internet users. You can rag out this "they're gonna tax the internet" ****ck all you like, but I know you're well aware that it isn't the least bit true.

:doh
Clearly you know not of what you speak.
Nor have you given time for full effect of the classification, which is pretty lame to make such a claim at this time.

Just what do you think "for now we do forbear" means?
Let me clue you in, classifying it as they did still opens it up to be taxed. Or did that skip your attention?

As increasing Government involvement is what occurred, Obamacare for the internet is pretty much a relative comparison.

 

[CMPancake]

:doh
Clearly you know not of what you speak.
Nor have you given time for full effect of the classification, which is pretty lame to make such a claim at this time.

Just what do you think "for now we do forbear" means?
Let me clue you in, classifying it as they did still opens it up to be taxed. Or did that skip your attention?

As increasing Government involvement is what occurred, Obamacare for the internet is pretty much a relative comparison.

I won't argue with someone who has to perform mental gymnastics to defend something that has been debunked and proven wrong. Have a good one.

 

[Excon]

I won't argue with someone who has to perform mental gymnastics to defend something that has been debunked and proven wrong. Have a good one.

:doh
The only mental gymnastics going on here are your premature assertions.

 

[CMPancake]

:doh
The only mental gymnastics going on here are your premature assertions.

The premature (and quite frankly, baseless) assertions made were from the anti-net neutrality camp. Even now with the reality of the situation shown to the world you still refuse to accept you were wrong. Move on.

 

[Excon]

The premature (and quite frankly, baseless) assertions made were from the anti-net neutrality camp. Even now with the reality of the situation shown to the world you still refuse to accept you were wrong. Move on.

:doh
Holy ****!
:naughty
No, they were from you.
Again, what did you not understand about "for now we do forbear"?

It proves that classifying it as a Class II Utility opened it up for those fees to be assessed, exactly as we were informed.
And proves your above statement to be baseless in that regard. Or in other words, a direct and deliberate lie.

 

[Boo Radley]

The words mean there is nothing there for now. So, for now CM pancake is correct. And it means those who panicked like Cruz and Paul were wrong. While the words may leave a door open, as this is a changing word, it doesn't mean it will happen.

 

[Hatuey]

Now that the document is actually available to the public, Ted Cruz's supporters can show us where the taxes are. Better yet, they can show us where it says the government will take control of the internet. Better yet, they can show us what makes these rules similar in anyway to ObamaCare. Or they can show how the concept of net neutrality as stated here is Obamacare. Don't expect anything other than the parsing of words like "for now".

 

[Excon]

The words mean there is nothing there for now. So, for now CM pancake is correct. And it means those who panicked like Cruz and Paul were wrong. While the words may leave a door open, as this is a changing word, it doesn't mean it will happen.

:doh
It means that classifying it as a utility opened it up to fees being assessed where none could be before.

 

[Excon]

Now that the document is actually available to the public, Ted Cruz's supporters can show us where the taxes are.

Oh look, another one who does not understand the wording of "for now we do forbear".
It has already been shown where they are and how much they would be if implemented at this time.

Better yet, they can show us what makes these rules similar in anyway to ObamaCare. Or they can show how the concept of net neutrality as stated here is Obamacare.

False and dishonest argument.
Especially as the similarity is Government involvement where it doesn't need to be.

Don't expect anything other than the parsing of words like "for now".

Lame argument, as the wording proves that the fees can now be assessed where they previously could not.

 

[Deuce]

If you are speaking about arguing with me; No. :naughty You are misstating what occurred.

Once the information was known that they may not immediately apply the tax, it wasn't argued that it would immediately be charged. But the tax still does apply as a Class II Utility as the rules require.

Just what do you think "for now we do forbear" means?
Let me clue you in, classifying it as they did still opens it up to be taxed as you were told.

I have no idea what you argued specifically. It was argued to me that the FCC must levy this tax, and clearly they are not required to. They can, but wont necessarily do it. That was my argument all along. You are the one misstating things.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

You say this now. I bet you think the ACA was only half right in fixing things too, needs more government.

Without net neutrality in place, DebatePolitics might be threatened as one proposed anti-neutrality plan would require websites to pay fees for faster service which means DP would have to raise even more money, perhaps too much money, to run at an adequate speed. That example alone should let you know how important net neutrality is. People who don't understand that importance are either idiots or jerks, like I said.

 

[Renae]

Without net neutrality in place, DebatePolitics might be threatened as one proposed anti-neutrality plan would require websites to pay fees for faster service which means DP would have to raise even more money, perhaps too much money, to run at an adequate speed. That example alone should let you know how important net neutrality is. People who don't understand that importance are either idiots or jerks, like I said.

Because DP is a BANDWIDTH INTENSE SITE! right? Please, spare us the cockamamie bull****. The Net Neutrality was a power grab by bureacrats and the fools cheering it on have no clue how bad this move is gonna screw them over. the worst part is, all you sheep will do, five years from now as this stupid mucks up the web? Demand more government.

 

[Travis007]

I won't argue with someone who has to perform mental gymnastics to defend something that has been debunked and proven wrong. Have a good one.

what gymnastics? what part dont ya get? its an keeping open ended situation that will be back loaded just like Obamacare..and they can pick and choose winners

Excon is 100% right

 

[Travis007]

Now that the document is actually available to the public, Ted Cruz's supporters can show us where the taxes are. Better yet, they can show us where it says the government will take control of the internet. Better yet, they can show us what makes these rules similar in anyway to ObamaCare. Or they can show how the concept of net neutrality as stated here is Obamacare. Don't expect anything other than the parsing of words like "for now".

You show me how this close ended and they say "there will never be taxes"

 

[Travis007]

only a fool thinks this isnt a power grab to a system that was not broken..what was going to happen was more competition to keep prices lower...

Obama knows best.. nobody is as smart as that community organizer.