Sen. Dianne Feinstein is worried net neutrality might help the terrorists

jet57 said:

I did: I cut through all the mumbo jumbo you using to side step a very simple issue. You're all wound up in muckity-muck without considering how got here in the first place. I mean - there's your answer!

Click to expand...

Jet, the markets flow, things change, if company A decides to try and ream the consumers, another will rise up and not, making the choices bare out. Generally companies don't survive like that, it takes time, but Government is the sledgehammer answer, not the solution.

Renae said:

Jet, the markets flow, things change, if company A decides to try and ream the consumers, another will rise up and not, making the choices bare out. Generally companies don't survive like that, it takes time, but Government is the sledgehammer answer, not the solution.

Click to expand...

That's what they said with Airline Deregulation, but it hasn't worked out like that has it? The sledgehammer answer only works when nothing else does, that's why we have it. It's sad statement on the American society, but all men are created equal means just that, and when empires turn their backs on that concept, well, WWI happens... The American Revolution happens, etc etc.

Renae said:

Jet, the markets flow, things change, if company A decides to try and ream the consumers, another will rise up and not, making the choices bare out. Generally companies don't survive like that, it takes time, but Government is the sledgehammer answer, not the solution.

Click to expand...

ISPs are utility like in nature. You couldn't have 15 different companies run water lines to your house any more than you can have 15 ISPs laying cable to your house. It's impractical to have such a situation, so some entity has to be in charge of it. There is no selection for most people when it comes to ISP. I know it's fun to just keep chanting over and over again about how the free market will sort it out, but history has shown it won't.

I've lived in 6 states and 3 countries, and I've never lived in an area where there was more than one option for an ISP. If Comcast or whoever decided they wanted to **** me, I would have absolutely zero recourse and I would be disconnected from the rest of the world for not paying the monopoly holders.

jet57 said:

That's what they said with Airline Deregulation, but it hasn't worked out like that has it? The sledgehammer answer only works when nothing else does, that's why we have it. It's sad statement on the American society, but all men are created equal means just that, and when empires turn their backs on that concept, well, WWI happens... The American Revolution happens, etc etc.

Click to expand...

Southwest airlines.

Renae said:

Jet, the markets flow, things change, if company A decides to try and ream the consumers, another will rise up and not, making the choices bare out. Generally companies don't survive like that, it takes time, but Government is the sledgehammer answer, not the solution.

Click to expand...

Internet service isn't really a free market.

Renae said:

Southwest airlines.

Click to expand...

They're planes are packed like freight in a trailer and their prices are really not that great. So air travel has been reduced to the bottom line and higher profit margins. But you get the point.

Renae said:

You really have no idea what you are talking about. They sued for the right to stay competitive and let the market work out the problems. Yes, I'm aware, municipalities tend to be backed by taxes and thus are not subject to the same rules of economics as free market entities, thus distorting the market.

Click to expand...

As you only started researching this topic today, you're understandably confused about where the "problem" and the "solution" lie. The reason for net neutrality is it allows all websites and online stores, not merely Amazon, Ebay or Netflix to start on even ground. If the largest and most successful companies are paying the higher prices so that people get faster internet access to their sites then that edges out the small businesses (and don't confuse that for "faster internet speeds," that's different. If you're confused why I'll be happy to explain). It also prevents isps from being the de facto sole key holders to the internet, putting their own products as being almost exclusively accessible compared to anyone else. The "problem" isn't anything the isps are solving -- they are the problem (or at least they're trying super hard to be, but they're just being held back...so far).

Also, it is evident from what you just made up about the municipalities that you never heard of this issue until I brought it up. Again, the isps were the problem: local municipalities were left with either highly inferior internet access or no internet access at all because the internet providers simply didn't consider them profitable. So the municipalities sought to create their own isps, and the telecoms responded by lobbying state congresses to prevent them from doing so. So while you've been solely focused on how much government sucks, you've been entirely blind to where the corporations in this instance were the core of the problems. A neutral internet is good for you -- it's literally in your best interests -- but you've been blinded and conned by corporate partisan soundbites into holding a belief that you're uninformed about and which is objectively bad for you.

SlevinKelevra said:

please provide citations and quote the relevant section(s) that you think support your point.

Click to expand...

Sorry for butting in Renae...

SlevinKelevra, as you wish, let us look at some of the actual text from the rules.

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

Click to expand...

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

Click to expand...

Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) endusers’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to endusers. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

Click to expand...

This “no unreasonable interference/disadvantage” standard protects free expression, thus fulfilling the congressional policy that “the Internet offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

Click to expand...

No unreasonable is the same as reasonable. Thus, the rules are setting a standard for reasonable interference. So what is "reasonable"

A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.

Click to expand...

So what is "legitimate"

Although the Commission historically has not used advisory opinions to promote compliance with our rules, we conclude that they have the potential to serve as useful tools to provide clarity, guidance, and predictability concerning the open Internet rules.598 Advisory opinions will enable companies to seek guidance on the propriety of certain open Internet practices before implementing them, enabling them to be proactive about compliance and avoid enforcement actions later

Click to expand...

So... Reasonable and legitimate is whatever the current FCC Commission says it is whenever they feel like it.

And it gets even better. The FCC gets to determine that they can ignore the "vast majority" of their own rules when it comes to Net Neutrality.

In finding that broadband Internet access service is subject to Title II, we simultaneously exercise the Commission’s forbearance authority to forbear from 30 statutory provisions and render over 700 codified rules inapplicable, to establish a light-touch regulatory framework tailored to preserving those provisions that advance our goals of more, better, and open broadband. We thus forbear from the vast majority of rules adopted under Title II.

Click to expand...

So we need Net Neutrality to stop private enterprise from doing things that they have never actually done, because they might. We need the FCC to fix an Internet that isn't actually broken. While on the other hand we can trust the Government not to abuse their powers; which they constantly do. Bizarro World is real.

RabidAlpaca said:

ISPs are utility like in nature. You couldn't have 15 different companies run water lines to your house any more than you can have 15 ISPs laying cable to your house. It's impractical to have such a situation, so some entity has to be in charge of it. There is no selection for most people when it comes to ISP. I know it's fun to just keep chanting over and over again about how the free market will sort it out, but history has shown it won't.

Click to expand...

True, there is only one cable running to your house. But it is your local Government that decides who can use it. Many jurisdictions demand competing providers for the citizens. That is why many jurisdictions require cable sharing. That means, for example, if Comcast actually ran the cable, they still have to allow other companies to use the same cable after paying an access fee. The company paying the access fee still has to comply with PEG, and get issued a certificate of public use. But this process still allows multiple cable providers to serve the same home.

I've lived in 6 states and 3 countries, and I've never lived in an area where there was more than one option for an ISP. If Comcast or whoever decided they wanted to **** me, I would have absolutely zero recourse and I would be disconnected from the rest of the world for not paying the monopoly holders.

Click to expand...

You seem to direct your distain at the cable companies instead of the real culprit, the local Government. A cable company cannot run cable without a certificate of public good. The certificate is needed because the companies are using public right of ways, and in exchange for that access, they must provide PEG (Public, Educational, & Government Access Television) channels. It is the local jurisdiction that got together and voted on only allowing the one provider you had. They don't want ten companies running ten cables down every street.

So you do have a recourse. You, and a small army of like minded individuals, simply lobby your local commission to have the cable company changed, or a new one added. It is the commission that controls the monopoly, not Comcast. Of course the commission will probably not want to give up the big fat Comcast contributions, but that is a subject for another thread.

natsb said:

True, there is only one cable running to your house. But it is your local Government that decides who can use it. Many jurisdictions demand competing providers for the citizens. That is why many jurisdictions require cable sharing. That means, for example, if Comcast actually ran the cable, they still have to allow other companies to use the same cable after paying an access fee. The company paying the access fee still has to comply with PEG, and get issued a certificate of public use. But this process still allows multiple cable providers to serve the same home.




You seem to direct your distain at the cable companies instead of the real culprit, the local Government. A cable company cannot run cable without a certificate of public good. The certificate is needed because the companies are using public right of ways, and in exchange for that access, they must provide PEG (Public, Educational, & Government Access Television) channels. It is the local jurisdiction that got together and voted on only allowing the one provider you had. They don't want ten companies running ten cables down every street.

So you do have a recourse. You, and a small army of like minded individuals, simply lobby your local commission to have the cable company changed, or a new one added. It is the commission that controls the monopoly, not Comcast. Of course the commission will probably not want to give up the big fat Comcast contributions, but that is a subject for another thread.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. For a lot of the country, there would be zero companies trying to run cable. They only agree to run cable when they are granted subsidies and granted exclusive rights to the area. "They don't want ten companies running cable" is not some arbitrary restriction that local cities create out of spite. In dense cities where you actually might have ten companies wanting to run cable, yeah, actually, ten companies digging up the streets is a problem.

Deuce said:

You have it backwards. For a lot of the country, there would be zero companies trying to run cable. They only agree to run cable when they are granted subsidies and granted exclusive rights to the area. "They don't want ten companies running cable" is not some arbitrary restriction that local cities create out of spite. In dense cities where you actually might have ten companies wanting to run cable, yeah, actually, ten companies digging up the streets is a problem.

Click to expand...

If you were not in such a hurry to argue, you would notice that we are saying the same thing. Sigh....

Anomalism said:

Please stay vigilant friends. Do not trade your freedoms for the illusion of security. We cannot let them take the internet from us.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is worried net neutrality might help the terrorists | The Verge

In a remarkable feat, internet providers have apparently succeeded in making the net neutrality fight about terrorism. In a newly-published letter delivered to the Federal Communications Commission in May, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) raised concerns that the new net neutrality rules might be used to shield terrorists. In particular, Feinstein was concerned that Dzhokar Tsarnaev had studied bomb-making materials on the internet — specifically, online copies of AQAP's Inspire magazine — and that many broadband providers had complained to her that net neutrality rules would prevent them from honoring any orders to block that content.

Click to expand...

it is just a farce,bomb making knowledge is easily obtainable and had been done so long before the internet,and will still be there no matter how much they restrict the internet.

natsb said:

True, there is only one cable running to your house. But it is your local Government that decides who can use it. Many jurisdictions demand competing providers for the citizens. That is why many jurisdictions require cable sharing. That means, for example, if Comcast actually ran the cable, they still have to allow other companies to use the same cable after paying an access fee. The company paying the access fee still has to comply with PEG, and get issued a certificate of public use. But this process still allows multiple cable providers to serve the same home.




You seem to direct your distain at the cable companies instead of the real culprit, the local Government. A cable company cannot run cable without a certificate of public good. The certificate is needed because the companies are using public right of ways, and in exchange for that access, they must provide PEG (Public, Educational, & Government Access Television) channels. It is the local jurisdiction that got together and voted on only allowing the one provider you had. They don't want ten companies running ten cables down every street.

So you do have a recourse. You, and a small army of like minded individuals, simply lobby your local commission to have the cable company changed, or a new one added. It is the commission that controls the monopoly, not Comcast. Of course the commission will probably not want to give up the big fat Comcast contributions, but that is a subject for another thread.

Click to expand...

Oh ok, so all I have to do to keep a fair and balanced internet is take on the corporate lobbies and the government. You kind of prove my point. That shouldn't be necessary. Net neutrality is supposed to ensure that the little guy like myself has equal access to the internet and I'm not screwed out of what has become a basic necessity. It'd be great to live in a world where there were many providers for every utility service and that the free market could handle all problems that arise, but history has shown that to not be the case.

natsb said:

So we need Net Neutrality to stop private enterprise from doing things that they have never actually done, because they might. Bizarro World is real.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Violations
Indeed, it is.
You know, because .... they have done this stuff.

SlevinKelevra said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Violations
Indeed, it is.
You know, because .... they have done this stuff.

Click to expand...

We have made progress. Now that you have acknowledged that the Government does indeed intend on managing Internet content by attempting the "move the goalpost" tactic, we can tackle your next fallacy.

I can't believe someone so adamant about exact references had the audacity to reference Wikipedia. Could you please reference the actual violation in any of the items in the supposed violations section? Let's use your own standard. Please use actual text from the violation.