FCC and the Internet

popeye

popeye

New member
Jun 12, 2007
1,799
55
0
The Federal Communications Commission has decided to hell with courts ruling against them and is planning to go ahead with "net neutrality" by regulating the Internet as if it were a utility.

Now, most you you sane people have to see the problems that are in store for us if this happens. Even if you are a socialist, communist, maoist etc. you must realize that the current facist won't be in power forever. Imagine an evil conservative with power over the Internet (can you say all porn banned ).

This is also bad for Internet marketers. If the doors are open to government having a big hand on the Internet, who knows what is next. Taxing all transactions, crushing regs on advertising. You get the idea.

Call your senators and congress people and rail them over this shit.
 


As usual, other than being a bit misleading, I agree with you popeye, but in this case, I think net neutrality is good for us, so let's just leave it alone.

On the other hand, strict (that's not quite what this is) net neutrality, like telling ISPs not to QoS bittorrent is stupid as hell.
 
This is the Universal Service provision, and it requires the FCC to pursue policies that provide "[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services . . . in all regions of the Nation."
Click to expand...


Holy this is a stupid move. What the heck.
 
subigo said:
I'd also suggest people read what is really going on, instead of listening to popeye's rabble rabble.

FCC outlines new 'third way' internet regulatory plan, will split access from content -- Engadget
Click to expand...

Yep, the government (right or left) heavily regulating the Internet is a good thing! They have done so well regulating everything else!

Is there a "few" things the FCC want to do that I think may be good....yes. Is it worth having the government essentially run the Internet? NO. Once you let the government in, you won't get them out. This will be a stepping stone to further reaching and repressive regulation.
 
popeye said:
Yep, the government (right or left) heavily regulating the Internet is a good thing! They have done so well regulating everything else!

Is there a "few" things the FCC want to do that I think may be good....yes. Is it worth having the government essentially run the Internet? NO.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never lived in an area that only offers Mediacom.
 
If the market wants access to certain sites or programs, there will be an ISP provider that allows it. You don't need government to regulate that for you.
 
Refrozen said:
Heh, turns out real life costs more than $300 / month, subigo.
Click to expand...

I have a hunch Subigo is able to stretch $300 to longer than a month...
he doesnt pay for electricity (has his pets run on treadmill-generating power converters), no gas/oil (burns firewood), no Internet fees (wifi's off his neighbor's connection), no furniture bills (uses milk crates and giant bouncy balls for chairs), and no food bills (eats his words).
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgtryan and FTC-Hater
Roundabout said:
I have a hunch Subigo is able to stretch $300 to longer than a month...
he doesnt pay for electricity (has his pets run on treadmill-generating power converters), no gas/oil (burns firewood), no Internet fees (wifi's off his neighbor's connection), no furniture bills (uses milk crates and giant bouncy balls for chairs), and no food bills (eats his words).
Click to expand...

^^ This....


oh, and this:
-------
----
---
--
-
-
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html

subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html
subigo.html

 
This might seem like a innocent move if you believe the people behind it have good intentions. But this should bother some people. The court struck down the FCC's "net neutrality" saying they didn't have the authority and what do they do?

They pretend the court decision means nothing. They try to go around the courts by declaring the Internet a "public utility". Regardless of who you are, that shit should strike you as sketchy. There's something rather worrying about the zealotry with which the people at the FCC are trying to get this power.

If you believe these people have pure intentions, great maybe you're right. But if there's anything shady about these Obama people trying to get control over the Internet, you should think long and hard about whether we as Americans should be allowing them to take this unprecedented step. As for me, I say no to this power grab.
 
cardine said:
If the market wants access to certain sites or programs, there will be an ISP provider that allows it. You don't need government to regulate that for you.
Click to expand...

That assumes that there is a free and competitive market and when it comes to ISP's there just isn't a competitive market in the US. If you want reliable or fast internet you either have to go with the local cable company or the phone company. There just isn't a viable third or forth competitor in most major US markets so there isn't enough choice for people to move between internet providers.
 
dably said:
That assumes that there is a free and competitive market and when it comes to ISP's there just isn't a competitive market in the US. If you want reliable or fast internet you either have to go with the local cable company or the phone company. There just isn't a viable third or forth competitor in most major US markets so there isn't enough choice for people to move between internet providers.
Click to expand...

How dare you say that. Don't you know the free market means we all have dozens of broadband ISP choices? That's why I have... oh, nevermind. I have one option.
 
From what I understand, and this may be way off, is that this is to prevent a google-slap equivalent at an ISP level. So that no ISP has the right to favor or block any site based on their interests.

Attorney generals already have power to go after sites and have gone against content sites like price comparison sites. not to mention the FTC also jumping in. Whoever thinks the government doesn't already have a hand in this is delusional. But I do agree that it warrants getting looked at closer at it may contain hidden provisions implying more censoring powers under the guise of "net neutrality"
 
subigo said:
How dare you say that. Don't you know the free market means we all have dozens of broadband ISP choices? That's why I have... oh, nevermind. I have one option.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, the government will make it all better. They'll even give you a brand new cardboard box to live in.
 
MadMaxNine said:
From what I understand, and this may be way off, is that this is to prevent a google-slap equivalent at an ISP level. So that no ISP has the right to favor or block any site based on their interests.

Attorney generals already have power to go after sites and have gone against content sites like price comparison sites. not to mention the FTC also jumping in. Whoever thinks the government doesn't already have a hand in this is delusional...
Click to expand...

ssshhhhh.... The Internet is a free and open wonderland.
 
subigo said:
How dare you say that. Don't you know the free market means we all have dozens of broadband ISP choices? That's why I have... oh, nevermind. I have one option.
Click to expand...

So start your own broadband provider and quit bitching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back