• 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 issues Net Neutrality Rules

What do you think of the FCC's statement on Net Neutrality?


  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Wired said:
After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.
Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.

...


All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.

Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.
The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality | WIRED

The rhetoric sounds great... but this, coming from the same government who gave us the non-Affordable couldn't Care less about you Act. Normally, government intrusion is the bell that tolls doom for us all. What does the government consider "open" does not mean it's what we would consider "open". So is this really about keeping the internet open and free or is it about government control?

Weigh in...
 
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality | WIRED

The rhetoric sounds great... but this, coming from the same government who gave us the non-Affordable couldn't Care less about you Act. Normally, government intrusion is the bell that tolls doom for us all. What does the government consider "open" does not mean it's what we would consider "open". So is this really about keeping the internet open and free or is it about government control?

Weigh in...

I don't know and am willing to wait and see before passing judgement. If it doesn't work out so swell, I see no reason why we can't change the rules.
 
I don't know and am willing to wait and see before passing judgement. If it doesn't work out so swell, I see no reason why we can't change the rules.

Well "we" (as in "we the people") cannot change the rules since the FCC has been given the power by Congress to issues rules as they see fit. The only way to change the rules would be to replace the President with a someone who would nominate an FCC head that would change the rule and that person would have to get nomination approval through Congress.
 
Isnt the FCC that thing responsible for words like ****, ****, ass, ****ing, nigger, **** and dick being able to be said on tv?

(asking as a not knowing foreigner)
 
our other networks have largely prospered under the same title 2 ruleset. This should be good for the country.
 
Isnt the FCC that thing responsible for words like ****, ****, ass, ****ing, nigger, **** and dick being able to be said on tv?

(asking as a not knowing foreigner)

yeah, we still have a culture that is offended by mere words, unfortunately.
 
Well "we" (as in "we the people") cannot change the rules since the FCC has been given the power by Congress to issues rules as they see fit. The only way to change the rules would be to replace the President with a someone who would nominate an FCC head that would change the rule and that person would have to get nomination approval through Congress.

Let's try a different tack on this. What problems do you see arising from this?
 
Isnt the FCC that thing responsible for words like ****, ****, ass, ****ing, nigger, **** and dick being able to be said on tv?

(asking as a not knowing foreigner)

Yes - they have (I don't know exactly when) issued rules of decency which words, images, etc... could and could not be broadcasted. For example, the broadcasting companies like the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) had for a long time not been able to let programs curse on television - the rules lightened up in the 1980's when after 11 pm local time, shows could allow some language to be used such as "ass" and "bitch". Cable television does not have to follow these guidelines as it is a pay service and is not broadcast to everyone, but a pay for subscription service.
 
Let's try a different tack on this. What problems do you see arising from this?

It really depends on the actual rules - the article sounds nice, but what does the government - the FCC - consider "open"? My problem with government intrusion of ANY kind with the internet as we have it today in the US, is that they, like other sectors will start to control it with an ever tightening grip. What starts out as a good and noble idea 20 years from now becomes stagnant with death and decay.
 
Isnt the FCC that thing responsible for words like ****, ****, ass, ****ing, nigger, **** and dick being able to be said on tv?

(asking as a not knowing foreigner)

There are words that are essentially banned, but words that also have non-sexual meanings such as prick, dick, etc are not completely banned. Just talking about sex in an 'offensive' manner, even if no taboo words are used, can result in a FCC fine. As George Carlin pointed out in his legendary "Seven Words You Can't Say on TV" routine, on broadcast you can "prick your finger, but you can't finger your prick." Racist terms and hate speech are not banned in the USA, only "language or material that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs".
 
Last edited:
There are words that are essentially banned, but words that also have non-sexual meanings such as prick, dick, etc are not completely banned. Just talking about sex in an 'offensive' manner, even if no taboo words are used, can result in a FCC fine. There was a Howard Stern case where that was upheld. As George Carlin pointed out in his legendary "Seven Words You Can't Say on TV" routine, on broadcast you can "prick your finger, but you can't finger your prick." Racist terms and hate speech are not banned in the USA, only "language or material that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs".

It`s funny how so many Americans, including on this forum, have ranted about how we Europeans are apparently tyrannical, yet you have a government body that censores tv.
 
Wheeler's statement re. Net Neutrality sound good, but since he was one of the driving forces for eliminating Net Neutrality, I don't trust him. We'll see when the actual Commission decision is announced.
 
It really depends on the actual rules - the article sounds nice, but what does the government - the FCC - consider "open"? My problem with government intrusion of ANY kind with the internet as we have it today in the US, is that they, like other sectors will start to control it with an ever tightening grip. What starts out as a good and noble idea 20 years from now becomes stagnant with death and decay.

Right, but the FCC isn't a new expansion of government created for internet, so the slippery slope argument isn't compelling to me in terms of the "expansion of government". I've looked at the pros and cons a number of times and don't really know what's legitimate and what's nonsense. I won't assume it's a bad thing just because the government is doing it, though. I've just never heard a really compelling argument either for or against net neutrality so I'm neutral on neutrality. :D
 
Basically the Internet and Mobility networks will become a new utility ... like the electric, public sewer or public water.

The big ISP's in the US are prepping their lawyers for an all out assault:

Official: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler comes out in support of the Internet as a utility | VentureBeat | Business | by Ruth Reader

Venture Beat said:
Wheeler was widely anticipated to reveal his proposal regarding Internet regulation today. Many also expected the chairman to reclassify the Internet as a public utility — known as Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This is the same rule that governs the telephone networks. Reclassifying the Internet as a public utility means the FCC will be able to more broadly regulate Internet service providers (ISPs) and prevent them from introducing faster broadband access for higher paying customers. Of course, today’s news will not sit well with ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.
On Monday, AT&T VP of federal regulatory Hank Hultquist laid out plans for a potential lawsuit if the FCC did decide to pursue reclassification under Title II. He made the argument that the Internet is an “information service” rather than a telecommunications service and therefore cannot legally be regulated under Title II.
“When the FCC has to defend reclassification before an appellate court, it will have to grapple with these and other arguments,” said Hultquist in a blog post.
No doubt there will be a battle between broadband carriers and the FCC in the months to come. In the meantime, Wheeler’s proposal still needs to pass muster with the FCC. The commission is slated to vote on February 26.
 
It`s funny how so many Americans, including on this forum, have ranted about how we Europeans are apparently tyrannical, yet you have a government body that censores tv.

The saddest part is that it appears most people in the USA want their broadcast TV and radio censored "to protect the children." Ironically, many of those same people probably have uncensored cable or satellite TV and don't make much of an effort to keep their kids from watching the type of shows that they want banned from broadcast. (esp. when the parents aren't home)
 
Last edited:
Right, but the FCC isn't a new expansion of government created for internet, so the slippery slope argument isn't compelling to me in terms of the "expansion of government".
I didn't mean that it would be an expansion of government, but it would be a new area of control for the FCC because the internet was NOT viewed as a public utility prior to this announcement.

I've looked at the pros and cons a number of times and don't really know what's legitimate and what's nonsense. I won't assume it's a bad thing just because the government is doing it, though. I've just never heard a really compelling argument either for or against net neutrality so I'm neutral on neutrality. :D
When was the last time the government injected rules and regulations into the private sector and made things BETTER?
 
Wheeler's statement re. Net Neutrality sound good, but since he was one of the driving forces for eliminating Net Neutrality, I don't trust him. We'll see when the actual Commission decision is announced.

yeah, i'm a little concerned that there will be weasel wording that lets those who lobbied enough get preferential data treatment anyway.

as for net neutrality itself, i'm absolutely for it. sites like this one would be languishing in the slow lane so that facebook, twitter, and netflix can load more quickly. startups would also have more trouble competing. **** that.
 
I didn't mean that it would be an expansion of government, but it would be a new area of control for the FCC because the internet was NOT viewed as a public utility prior to this announcement.

When was the last time the government injected rules and regulations into the private sector and made things BETTER?

Well, I must admit that I like anti-trust laws and think we probably benefit from the FDA. I'm also pretty glad we have the FDIC insuring our deposits and can't argue that better visibility to the terms of loans on loan applications are bad things. I'm very wary of government interference in private industry and am wary of this, too. I just won't automatically assume that if the government does it, it must be bad.
 
Well, I must admit that I like anti-trust laws and think we probably benefit from the FDA. I'm also pretty glad we have the FDIC insuring our deposits and can't argue that better visibility to the terms of loans on loan applications are bad things. I'm very wary of government interference in private industry and am wary of this, too. I just won't automatically assume that if the government does it, it must be bad.

You must be feeling more liberal than usual today. That's a good thing. :)
 
You must be feeling more liberal than usual today. That's a good thing. :)

I'm not at all liberal. I just THINK about issues instead of deciding what's wrong or right based on partisan rhetoric. I support legalization of marijuana and prostitution, too. The problem with most people involved in political discussion is that they care more about who's right than what's right.
 
I guess my question is, exactly what problem are they addressing with this solution?
 
I guess my question is, exactly what problem are they addressing with this solution?

"...the debate around Net neutrality centers on whether ISPs (Internet service providers) can limit, tier, block or otherwise affect Internet performance. Without Net neutrality, ISPs can even charge higher fees for more bandwidth and higher-speed access to one vendor and not others, thus establishing tiers of service. For instance, without Net neutrality, an ISP could sign a lucrative contract with Netflix, then charge lower rates for its customers who use Netflix rather than Blockbuster. Or, if an ISP preferred (e.g. had a financial interest in) one search engine over another, that ISP could force its customers to the preferred search engine by charging customers more each time they used any other search engine...."

- See more at: Net Neutrality in a Nutshell | E-Commerce | E-Commerce Times
 
Back
Top Bottom