Obama's Plan to Control the Internet
#21
(02-25-2015, 10:01 AM)tornado Wrote: This insightful article gives plenty of reasons to keep things as they are: http://rt.com/op-edge/171780-internet-ne...ensorship/

Dumping net neutrality: ‘Fast’ lane to censorship & Obama’s biggest letdown

<snip>
Who would play the game?

Savetheinternet.com, a lobby group which exists to defend net neutrality and is strongly opposing the FCC's moves, claims that American web users are in serious danger of having their freedoms swept away: "expect internet blackouts that extend far beyond the popular content vendors as smaller websites are caught in the crossfire. Tweets, emails and texts will be mysteriously delayed or dropped.”

"Videos will load slowly, if at all. Websites will work fine one minute, and time out another. Your ISP will claim it’s not their fault, and you’ll have no idea who is to blame. You also won’t be able to vote with your feet and wallet, as there’s no competition in broadband, and all ISPs will be playing this game," the group states on its website.

Furthermore, the activists outline that "ISPs hate the idea that they’re nothing more than providers of ‘dumb pipes’, or connections that simply carry our traffic. Now that they’re free from any legal restraints, the ISPs will try to get internet companies to pay tolls and threaten to block or delay them if they don’t. Exclusive deals could become the norm, with AT&T exclusively bringing you Netflix or Time Warner Cable as the sole source for YouTube."

Put plainly, the web will become akin to cable TV and a few oligarchs will control access to it, modern-day Ted Turners and Rupert Murdochs disguised as peaceniks in sneakers and baseball caps.

It would also allow the US government, through pliant businesspeople, to effectively censor news sites and blogs that it doesn't like by reducing their connection speeds to such low levels as to make their output unwatchable or unreadable. Additionally, it would empower Washington authorities to use their supplicants to block alternative views in times of war or political disputes.

Let's use the example of the Iraq war when the subsequently-discredited US intelligence, which formed the pretext for invasion, was already being questioned by many media sources before the first shots were fired. In the UK, the Daily Mirror, under the stewardship of latter-day TV personality Piers Morgan, was assiduously disputing the veracity of the White House claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Without net neutrality, a future George Bush could potentially, with a nod and a wink, 'ask' ISP-owning loyalists to stymie a prospective Daily Mirror so that the US public can't access dissenting views. This is the kind of behavior that the US has historically liked to moralize about internationally – now the FCC could be creating the conditions for it to be implemented at home.

Too complicated for me!
The piece above refers to
savetheinternet.com
so I took a look.
From that site:
In May 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler released a plan that would have allowed companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to discriminate online and create pay-to-play fast lanes.

Millions of you spoke out — and fought back.

Thanks to the huge public and political outcry, Wheeler shelved his original proposal, and on Feb. 4, 2015, he announced that he will base new Net Neutrality rules on Title II of the Communications Act, giving Internet users the strongest protections possible.

The FCC will vote on Wheeler’s proposal at its Feb. 26 meeting. If all goes well, it will be a watershed victory for activists who have fought for a decade to protect the open Internet.
Reply
#22
(02-25-2015, 03:13 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-25-2015, 10:01 AM)tornado Wrote: This insightful article gives plenty of reasons to keep things as they are: http://rt.com/op-edge/171780-internet-ne...ensorship/

Dumping net neutrality: ‘Fast’ lane to censorship & Obama’s biggest letdown

<snip>
Who would play the game?

Savetheinternet.com, a lobby group which exists to defend net neutrality and is strongly opposing the FCC's moves, claims that American web users are in serious danger of having their freedoms swept away: "expect internet blackouts that extend far beyond the popular content vendors as smaller websites are caught in the crossfire. Tweets, emails and texts will be mysteriously delayed or dropped.”

"Videos will load slowly, if at all. Websites will work fine one minute, and time out another. Your ISP will claim it’s not their fault, and you’ll have no idea who is to blame. You also won’t be able to vote with your feet and wallet, as there’s no competition in broadband, and all ISPs will be playing this game," the group states on its website.

Furthermore, the activists outline that "ISPs hate the idea that they’re nothing more than providers of ‘dumb pipes’, or connections that simply carry our traffic. Now that they’re free from any legal restraints, the ISPs will try to get internet companies to pay tolls and threaten to block or delay them if they don’t. Exclusive deals could become the norm, with AT&T exclusively bringing you Netflix or Time Warner Cable as the sole source for YouTube."

Put plainly, the web will become akin to cable TV and a few oligarchs will control access to it, modern-day Ted Turners and Rupert Murdochs disguised as peaceniks in sneakers and baseball caps.

It would also allow the US government, through pliant businesspeople, to effectively censor news sites and blogs that it doesn't like by reducing their connection speeds to such low levels as to make their output unwatchable or unreadable. Additionally, it would empower Washington authorities to use their supplicants to block alternative views in times of war or political disputes.

Let's use the example of the Iraq war when the subsequently-discredited US intelligence, which formed the pretext for invasion, was already being questioned by many media sources before the first shots were fired. In the UK, the Daily Mirror, under the stewardship of latter-day TV personality Piers Morgan, was assiduously disputing the veracity of the White House claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Without net neutrality, a future George Bush could potentially, with a nod and a wink, 'ask' ISP-owning loyalists to stymie a prospective Daily Mirror so that the US public can't access dissenting views. This is the kind of behavior that the US has historically liked to moralize about internationally – now the FCC could be creating the conditions for it to be implemented at home.

Too complicated for me!
The piece above refers to
savetheinternet.com
so I took a look.
From that site:
In May 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler released a plan that would have allowed companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to discriminate online and create pay-to-play fast lanes.

Millions of you spoke out — and fought back.

Thanks to the huge public and political outcry, Wheeler shelved his original proposal, and on Feb. 4, 2015, he announced that he will base new Net Neutrality rules on Title II of the Communications Act, giving Internet users the strongest protections possible.

The FCC will vote on Wheeler’s proposal at its Feb. 26 meeting. If all goes well, it will be a watershed victory for activists who have fought for a decade to protect the open Internet.
Why isn't the public being allowed to know how this will affect us?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ne...story.html
FCC's Pai: Net-neutrality proposal is secret Internet regulation plan
net-neutrality proposal from the agency's chairman as a "secret plan to regulate the Internet" that "opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes" on broadband services.

Commissioner Ajit Pai said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat, was misleading the public about what's in the plan. At a Tuesday news conference, Pai held up a copy of the thick draft proposal and called on Wheeler to make it public before the agency votes on it on Feb. 26.
Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan
Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," said Pai, an ardent opponent of net neutrality regulations.

"I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I imagined," he said.

The FCC typically does not release draft orders until after they are approved by the commission. Wheeler has the authority to do so but FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart said he will not break with "long-standing FCC practice."

Wheeler's proposal would impose tough new federal oversight of online traffic to ensure Internet providers don't give preference to video and other content from some websites over others.
lRelated FCC chairman faces balancing act on net neutrality issue

Business
FCC chairman faces balancing act on net neutrality issue

See all related
8

The plan would put wired and wireless broadband service providers in the same legal category as highly regulated telephone companies, although Wheeler said the FCC would take a light-touch approach that would not include rate regulation.

Democrats have a 3-2 majority on the commission and the proposal is expected to pass despite the opposition of Pai and the other Republican, Michael O'Rielly.

Pai spent 45 minutes Tuesday criticizing the report as an unnecessary overreach that would harm consumers and businesses.

"I foresee adverse consequences for the entire Internet economy," said Pai.

Highlighting the volatility of the issue, the news conference was disrupted by two supporters of net-neutrality rules.
I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I imagined. - FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese of the group PopularResistance.org yelled at Pai to "stop representing the telecoms" as security guards pulled them to the ground and forced them to leave the commission's public meeting room.

Pai said the plan's reclassification of broadband under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would make rate regulation inevitable. But he stopped short of saying Wheeler and other agency officials were lying about it.

"I don't think they're lying," he said. "I think they’re putting their spin on the proposal."

Hart noted that the FCC has overseen mobile voice calling under the same legal framework since 1993 and has not regulated prices in that sector.
cComments

look at your internet bill ............ There is no Tax on it ........ NOW DO YOU GET IT? Why do you really think Obama is asking for Net Neutrality and having a Federal Government takeover of the internet I'll give you a "HINT" Liberal Progressive Democrats ........... If...
Skip Adam
at 6:38 AM February 15, 2015

Add a comment See all comments
33

“The proposal will not regulate the prices broadband service providers charge their customers," she said, reiterating recent comments by Wheeler.

Pai repeatedly referred to the proposal as "President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet."

In November, Obama publicly called for the FCC to take a tougher regulatory approach than Wheeler initially proposed last year.

The plan Wheeler unveiled last week appears to be very similar to what Obama called for and two congressional committees have launched investigations into whether the president improperly influenced the independent FCC.
FCC chief seeks to treat Web as public utility in net neutrality fight
FCC chief seeks to treat Web as public utility in net neutrality fight

Public interest groups and some leading Internet companies, such as Amazon.com, also supported stricter government oversight of online traffic, as did the vast majority of nearly 4 million public comments submitted to the agency on the issue.

Pai said it was "very clear that ... outside political influences determined the trajectory of where the FCC is going."

"The president's plan to regulate the Internet is going to be the FCC's plan to regulate the Internet," he said.

Pai echoed top congressional Republicans in asking Wheeler to make the draft public before the Feb. 26 vote.

Last week, Pai posted a picture on Twitter of himself holding what he called Obama's "332-page plan to regulate the Internet."

"I wish the public could see what's inside," Pai tweeted.

The FCC has said the draft contains only eight pages of new regulations and the rest contains responses to the public comments on the issue.

Pai admitted Tuesday that the plan was not all regulations.

But he said in addition to the eight pages of new rules, there were 79 pages detailing other telecommunications regulations the FCC would exempt or not exempt Internet providers from complying with. There also were additional pages containing "extensive discussion" about how regulations would be interpreted and applied," Pai said.

"We need to make this plan public so that the American people can make a decision for themselves," Pai said.

But Pai said he would not violate agency rules and release the report himself.
Reply
#23
(02-25-2015, 03:23 PM)tornado Wrote:
(02-25-2015, 03:13 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-25-2015, 10:01 AM)tornado Wrote: This insightful article gives plenty of reasons to keep things as they are: http://rt.com/op-edge/171780-internet-ne...ensorship/

Dumping net neutrality: ‘Fast’ lane to censorship & Obama’s biggest letdown

<snip>
Who would play the game?

Savetheinternet.com, a lobby group which exists to defend net neutrality and is strongly opposing the FCC's moves, claims that American web users are in serious danger of having their freedoms swept away: "expect internet blackouts that extend far beyond the popular content vendors as smaller websites are caught in the crossfire. Tweets, emails and texts will be mysteriously delayed or dropped.”

"Videos will load slowly, if at all. Websites will work fine one minute, and time out another. Your ISP will claim it’s not their fault, and you’ll have no idea who is to blame. You also won’t be able to vote with your feet and wallet, as there’s no competition in broadband, and all ISPs will be playing this game," the group states on its website.

Furthermore, the activists outline that "ISPs hate the idea that they’re nothing more than providers of ‘dumb pipes’, or connections that simply carry our traffic. Now that they’re free from any legal restraints, the ISPs will try to get internet companies to pay tolls and threaten to block or delay them if they don’t. Exclusive deals could become the norm, with AT&T exclusively bringing you Netflix or Time Warner Cable as the sole source for YouTube."

Put plainly, the web will become akin to cable TV and a few oligarchs will control access to it, modern-day Ted Turners and Rupert Murdochs disguised as peaceniks in sneakers and baseball caps.

It would also allow the US government, through pliant businesspeople, to effectively censor news sites and blogs that it doesn't like by reducing their connection speeds to such low levels as to make their output unwatchable or unreadable. Additionally, it would empower Washington authorities to use their supplicants to block alternative views in times of war or political disputes.

Let's use the example of the Iraq war when the subsequently-discredited US intelligence, which formed the pretext for invasion, was already being questioned by many media sources before the first shots were fired. In the UK, the Daily Mirror, under the stewardship of latter-day TV personality Piers Morgan, was assiduously disputing the veracity of the White House claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Without net neutrality, a future George Bush could potentially, with a nod and a wink, 'ask' ISP-owning loyalists to stymie a prospective Daily Mirror so that the US public can't access dissenting views. This is the kind of behavior that the US has historically liked to moralize about internationally – now the FCC could be creating the conditions for it to be implemented at home.

Too complicated for me!
The piece above refers to
savetheinternet.com
so I took a look.
From that site:
In May 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler released a plan that would have allowed companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to discriminate online and create pay-to-play fast lanes.

Millions of you spoke out — and fought back.

Thanks to the huge public and political outcry, Wheeler shelved his original proposal, and on Feb. 4, 2015, he announced that he will base new Net Neutrality rules on Title II of the Communications Act, giving Internet users the strongest protections possible.

The FCC will vote on Wheeler’s proposal at its Feb. 26 meeting. If all goes well, it will be a watershed victory for activists who have fought for a decade to protect the open Internet.
Why isn't the public being allowed to know how this will affect us?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ne...story.html
FCC's Pai: Net-neutrality proposal is secret Internet regulation plan
net-neutrality proposal from the agency's chairman as a "secret plan to regulate the Internet" that "opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes" on broadband services.

Commissioner Ajit Pai said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat, was misleading the public about what's in the plan. At a Tuesday news conference, Pai held up a copy of the thick draft proposal and called on Wheeler to make it public before the agency votes on it on Feb. 26.
Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan
Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation," said Pai, an ardent opponent of net neutrality regulations.

"I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I imagined," he said.

The FCC typically does not release draft orders until after they are approved by the commission. Wheeler has the authority to do so but FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart said he will not break with "long-standing FCC practice."

Wheeler's proposal would impose tough new federal oversight of online traffic to ensure Internet providers don't give preference to video and other content from some websites over others.
lRelated FCC chairman faces balancing act on net neutrality issue

Business
FCC chairman faces balancing act on net neutrality issue

See all related
8

The plan would put wired and wireless broadband service providers in the same legal category as highly regulated telephone companies, although Wheeler said the FCC would take a light-touch approach that would not include rate regulation.

Democrats have a 3-2 majority on the commission and the proposal is expected to pass despite the opposition of Pai and the other Republican, Michael O'Rielly.

Pai spent 45 minutes Tuesday criticizing the report as an unnecessary overreach that would harm consumers and businesses.

"I foresee adverse consequences for the entire Internet economy," said Pai.

Highlighting the volatility of the issue, the news conference was disrupted by two supporters of net-neutrality rules.
I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I imagined. - FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese of the group PopularResistance.org yelled at Pai to "stop representing the telecoms" as security guards pulled them to the ground and forced them to leave the commission's public meeting room.

Pai said the plan's reclassification of broadband under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would make rate regulation inevitable. But he stopped short of saying Wheeler and other agency officials were lying about it.

"I don't think they're lying," he said. "I think they’re putting their spin on the proposal."

Hart noted that the FCC has overseen mobile voice calling under the same legal framework since 1993 and has not regulated prices in that sector.
cComments

look at your internet bill ............ There is no Tax on it ........ NOW DO YOU GET IT? Why do you really think Obama is asking for Net Neutrality and having a Federal Government takeover of the internet I'll give you a "HINT" Liberal Progressive Democrats ........... If...
Skip Adam
at 6:38 AM February 15, 2015

Add a comment See all comments
33

“The proposal will not regulate the prices broadband service providers charge their customers," she said, reiterating recent comments by Wheeler.

Pai repeatedly referred to the proposal as "President Obama's plan to regulate the Internet."

In November, Obama publicly called for the FCC to take a tougher regulatory approach than Wheeler initially proposed last year.

The plan Wheeler unveiled last week appears to be very similar to what Obama called for and two congressional committees have launched investigations into whether the president improperly influenced the independent FCC.
FCC chief seeks to treat Web as public utility in net neutrality fight
FCC chief seeks to treat Web as public utility in net neutrality fight

Public interest groups and some leading Internet companies, such as Amazon.com, also supported stricter government oversight of online traffic, as did the vast majority of nearly 4 million public comments submitted to the agency on the issue.

Pai said it was "very clear that ... outside political influences determined the trajectory of where the FCC is going."

"The president's plan to regulate the Internet is going to be the FCC's plan to regulate the Internet," he said.

Pai echoed top congressional Republicans in asking Wheeler to make the draft public before the Feb. 26 vote.

Last week, Pai posted a picture on Twitter of himself holding what he called Obama's "332-page plan to regulate the Internet."

"I wish the public could see what's inside," Pai tweeted.

The FCC has said the draft contains only eight pages of new regulations and the rest contains responses to the public comments on the issue.

Pai admitted Tuesday that the plan was not all regulations.

But he said in addition to the eight pages of new rules, there were 79 pages detailing other telecommunications regulations the FCC would exempt or not exempt Internet providers from complying with. There also were additional pages containing "extensive discussion" about how regulations would be interpreted and applied," Pai said.

"We need to make this plan public so that the American people can make a decision for themselves," Pai said.

But Pai said he would not violate agency rules and release the report himself.

And still more:

The FCC is not regulating the internet, the FCC is looking to regulate broadband service,” said McSherry, who said net neutrality supporters and opponents have been guilty of confusing the two. “The internet is many things, but most of the internet is outside of the FCC’s authority.”
“The open internet rules and classifying the internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act have nothing to do with the FCC regulating content,” she said. “They won’t use Title II as an excuse to control what you watch.”
“The FCC does have this other role — monitoring vulgar or explicit content on the radio and television — but with net neutrality, it’s not regulating content in that sense,” McSherry said. “They are putting in rules of the road for internet service providers (ISPs) that tell them they have to treat online traffic equally.”
Earlier this month, a conservative advocacy group Protect Internet Freedom released a video bashing the FCC’s proposal to treat the internet as a utility, suggesting that it would mean more government intrusion into how people use the internet and what services they use most.
“It’s kind of the opposite,” McSherry said. “The point of net neutrality rules is so that broadband providers won’t treat traffic differently, so it keeps people from snooping on your web traffic.” That way knowing how much data someone is using and for what wouldn’t be necessary.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02...ality-fcc/
Reply
#24
Still another view:

Talking heads skew ‘net neutrality’ debate

By Anne Flaherty

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Is President Barack Obama taking over the Internet? Not by a long stretch, but that’s not stopping political banter in the “net neutrality” debate. The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to put Internet service in the same regulatory camp as your telephone. That means broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile must act in the “public interest” when providing your Internet connection and conduct business in ways that are “just and reasonable.”

The goal, as stated by regulators: Prevent those service providers from creating paid Internet “fast lanes” and charging sites such as Google, YouTube and Netflix to move their data faster than others.

Some critics talk about the plan like it’s a government takeover of your Netflix account. Supporters say it’ll protect the status quo without price controls or new taxes. But the lobbyists and politicians aren’t telling the whole story.

A look at an argument

THE CLAIM: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet.” — Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

THE FACTS: It’s a shift for sure, but the FCC hasn’t proposed regulating Internet content or controlling access to websites. The question is how to regulate Internet service so providers don’t block or slow web traffic for financial gain.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says the only way to do that is to subject retail Internet service to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. That would expand FCC power significantly by allowing regulators to step in if there were allegations of harm to consumers. But it’s a reach to suggest that these new powers equate to a government takeover.

Also worth noting is that the FCC is independent from the administration. While Obama has put pressure on the FCC to enact tougher regulations, and he appointed Wheeler to head the agency, this is not the president’s call.

(From today's (2/26) MT)
Reply
#25
(02-26-2015, 08:07 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Still another view:

Talking heads skew ‘net neutrality’ debate

By Anne Flaherty

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Is President Barack Obama taking over the Internet? [b]Not by a long stretch, but that’s not stopping political banter in the “net neutrality” debate
. The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to put Internet service in the same regulatory camp as your telephone. That means broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile must act in the “public interest” when providing your Internet connection and conduct business in ways that are “just and reasonable.”[/b]

The goal, as stated by regulators: Prevent those service providers from creating paid Internet “fast lanes” and charging sites such as Google, YouTube and Netflix to move their data faster than others.

Some critics talk about the plan like it’s a government takeover of your Netflix account. Supporters say it’ll protect the status quo without price controls or new taxes. But the lobbyists and politicians aren’t telling the whole story.

A look at an argument

THE CLAIM: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet.” — Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

THE FACTS: It’s a shift for sure, but the FCC hasn’t proposed regulating Internet content or controlling access to websites. The question is how to regulate Internet service so providers don’t block or slow web traffic for financial gain.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says the only way to do that is to subject retail Internet service to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. That would expand FCC power significantly by allowing regulators to step in if there were allegations of harm to consumers. But it’s a reach to suggest that these new powers equate to a government takeover.

Also worth noting is that the FCC is independent from the administration. While Obama has put pressure on the FCC to enact tougher regulations, and he appointed Wheeler to head the agency, this is not the president’s call.

(From today's (2/26) MT)
How does Anne Flaherty know any of this? Supposedly the plan has not been released to the public. Why the secrecy?
Reply
#26
(02-26-2015, 08:17 AM)tornado Wrote:
(02-26-2015, 08:07 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Still another view:

Talking heads skew ‘net neutrality’ debate

By Anne Flaherty

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Is President Barack Obama taking over the Internet? [b]Not by a long stretch, but that’s not stopping political banter in the “net neutrality” debate
. The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to put Internet service in the same regulatory camp as your telephone. That means broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile must act in the “public interest” when providing your Internet connection and conduct business in ways that are “just and reasonable.”[/b]

The goal, as stated by regulators: Prevent those service providers from creating paid Internet “fast lanes” and charging sites such as Google, YouTube and Netflix to move their data faster than others.

Some critics talk about the plan like it’s a government takeover of your Netflix account. Supporters say it’ll protect the status quo without price controls or new taxes. But the lobbyists and politicians aren’t telling the whole story.

A look at an argument

THE CLAIM: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet.” — Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai.

THE FACTS: It’s a shift for sure, but the FCC hasn’t proposed regulating Internet content or controlling access to websites. The question is how to regulate Internet service so providers don’t block or slow web traffic for financial gain.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says the only way to do that is to subject retail Internet service to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. That would expand FCC power significantly by allowing regulators to step in if there were allegations of harm to consumers. But it’s a reach to suggest that these new powers equate to a government takeover.

Also worth noting is that the FCC is independent from the administration. While Obama has put pressure on the FCC to enact tougher regulations, and he appointed Wheeler to head the agency, this is not the president’s call.

(From today's (2/26) MT)
How does Anne Flaherty know any of this? Supposedly the plan has not been released to the public. Why the secrecy?

Beats me.
From the LA times:

The FCC typically does not release draft orders until after they are approved by the commission. Wheeler has the authority to do so but FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart said he will not break with "long-standing FCC practice."

Wheeler's proposal would impose tough new federal oversight of online traffic to ensure Internet providers don't give preference to video and other content from some websites over others.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ne...story.html
Reply
#27
Its really a simple issue. If you want the Internet to stay the same as it is now, then you support net neutrality. If you think the big telecom companies should be able to charge people different rates for different Internet speeds then you would not support net neutrality.

So this is my question. Who here owns a big telecom company?
Reply
#28
(02-26-2015, 09:47 AM)Snail Wrote: Its really a simple issue. If you want the Internet to stay the same as it is now, then you support net neutrality. If you think the big telecom companies should be able to charge people different rates for different Internet speeds then you would not support net neutrality.

So this is my question. Who here owns a big telecom company?

First things first: I agree with you. (And while I used to own Verizon , I sold it to buy a big twin Harley)

But consider this: Bandwidth like all things has limits. Say you enjoy Netflix streaming but it buffers constantly slowing your view pleasure because about a million people are uploading videos of stupid pet tricks on Facebook or wherever. Those pet trick videos do eat up bandwidth.

So, I don't know the answers to this but I think it may be far more complex than many of us are willing to consider.

For instance: What's the difference between the Internet and the WWW? Why does it matter to us? http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Inte...ternet.asp
Reply
#29
(02-26-2015, 10:05 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-26-2015, 09:47 AM)Snail Wrote: Its really a simple issue. If you want the Internet to stay the same as it is now, then you support net neutrality. If you think the big telecom companies should be able to charge people different rates for different Internet speeds then you would not support net neutrality.

So this is my question. Who here owns a big telecom company?

First things first: I agree with you. (And while I used to own Verizon , I sold it to buy a big twin Harley)

But consider this: Bandwidth like all things has limits. Say you enjoy Netflix streaming but it buffers constantly slowing your view pleasure because about a million people are uploading videos of stupid pet tricks on Facebook or wherever. Those pet trick videos do eat up bandwidth.

So, I don't know the answers to this but I think it may be far more complex than many of us are willing to consider.

For instance: What's the difference between the Internet and the WWW? Why does it matter to us? http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Inte...ternet.asp

I think you have it just backwards. ISP's already charge differently for increased bandwidth to the end user, you. Net neutrality has to do with ISP's charging the content provider (whoever supplies the video etc.) differently for the bandwidth to stream over the ISP's facility. So, should content providers with deep pockets get faster service? Or, to put it a different way, should content providers with less money have their content stream slowed down as it's on it's way to your computer?
Reply
#30
(02-26-2015, 06:02 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(02-26-2015, 10:05 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-26-2015, 09:47 AM)Snail Wrote: Its really a simple issue. If you want the Internet to stay the same as it is now, then you support net neutrality. If you think the big telecom companies should be able to charge people different rates for different Internet speeds then you would not support net neutrality.

So this is my question. Who here owns a big telecom company?

First things first: I agree with you. (And while I used to own Verizon , I sold it to buy a big twin Harley)

But consider this: Bandwidth like all things has limits. Say you enjoy Netflix streaming but it buffers constantly slowing your view pleasure because about a million people are uploading videos of stupid pet tricks on Facebook or wherever. Those pet trick videos do eat up bandwidth.

So, I don't know the answers to this but I think it may be far more complex than many of us are willing to consider.

For instance: What's the difference between the Internet and the WWW? Why does it matter to us? http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Inte...ternet.asp

I think you have it just backwards. ISP's already charge differently for increased bandwidth to the end user, you. Net neutrality has to do with ISP's charging the content provider (whoever supplies the video etc.) differently for the bandwidth to stream over the ISP's facility. So, should content providers with deep pockets get faster service? Or, to put it a different way, should content providers with less money have their content stream slowed down as it's on it's way to your computer?

Well, if I didn't have it backwards I certainly didn't have it complete.
Right you are.
But in the end our ISP's control BOTH the provider and the end user. So some regulation seems required to keep things in check.
And, it IS all about bandwidth after all. In Korea (for instance) the entire country is wired with fiber optics, the system subsidized, and from things I read everyone is happy with it. When the pipe is big enough the squabbles stop.
Reply
#31
Well it seems NONE of the doom and gloom Larry proclaimed would happen. BIG surprise from the easily duped one.  Rolling Eyes 
 And yet, today they passed the repeal anyway.

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle landmark rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

The agency scrapped so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone services.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/techn...-vote.html
Reply
#32
Hmm doom and gloom didn't happen? Riddle me this, its only been two years since the new rules have been in play. Was it doom and gloom for the 25 years before these rules took place? They just went back to what they were in the past.....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#33
For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more... I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use? You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less?? Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#34
Why are you always such a combative dick?
Reply
#35
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

True, but I bought unlimited internet from my provider.

if i wanted to buy limited, like AOL used to be. I suppose that would be an option.

I buy limited cell phone coverage at $12 a month, (1000 minutes). iI could also buy unlimited cell phone coverage too.

Now as far as heavy equipment, which tears up the road more. I don't think I'm wearing out the fiber optic cables more with net flicks then I do with you tube.

Remember, before you tell me about how much net flick uses. it the receiving end that is also part of the equation. There are people who pay for their internet who are receiving the content. Money is made at both ends.
Reply
#36
Lol. You don't like it when someone hits you you between the eyes with some common sense/ truth, about a issue. I see you had no response as it's tough to respond to such a common sense issue.. Pay more when you use more! Gasp!! O my what is the world coming to?? What are you some thin skinned whiny liberal? Cheers

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply
#37
(12-14-2017, 06:28 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

True, but I bought unlimited internet from my provider.

if i wanted to buy limited, like AOL used to be. I suppose that would be an option.

I buy limited cell phone coverage at $12 a month, (1000 minutes). iI could also buy unlimited cell phone coverage too.

Now as far as heavy equipment, which tears up the road more. I don't think I'm wearing out the fiber optic cables more with net flicks then I do with you tube.

Remember, before you tell me about how much net flick uses. it the receiving end that is also part of the equation. There are people who pay for their internet who are receiving the content. Money is made at both ends.
No I would agree you probably are not wearing out the internet, but it is a limited resource so I don't see the issue of paying more when you use more. It tends to work that way in most things in life. ( there is costs to put internet in, maintain, upgrade etc, so its not like costs go away)

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
My question still stands to everyone here. If you use more why should you not have to pay more?
Reply
#38
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

That's not a good example. Your heavy equipment is deemed to put greater wear and tear on the public roadway. Thus you get to pay more for that beneficial use at the public's expense. Data passing through the internet doesn't cause wear and tear on the data links. The internet isn't a road, it's a data link.
Reply
#39
(12-14-2017, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-14-2017, 04:55 PM)capitalist pig Wrote: For you people that are confused. When you use more you may have to pay more...  I run heavy equipment and " use" the road up more then the average guy and pay much more in road tax then the average guy. So you in favor of everyone paying the same regardless of how much one uses, are you in favor of rolling back the higher taxes on me because of my higher use?   You should be as we all use the same " road" . Why should you be able to drive the same miles as me and pay less??  Please do explain....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

That's not a good example. Your heavy equipment is deemed to put greater wear and tear on the public roadway. Thus you get to pay more for that beneficial use at the public's expense. Data passing through the internet doesn't cause wear and tear on the data links. The internet isn't a road, it's a data link.
That data link does not work for free. Does it build itself? Upgrade itself? Chuck pays for unlimited use. What if I want limited use, should I pay the same as him? Or he the same as me if I pay for limited at at lessor cost?

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Why are not all phone bills the same? Its just a data link!
Reply
#40
Curious cuzz.. What do you do for a living? You seem a bit confused on how many things work in the world work. Paying more for using more is the norm. Sometimes the cost of the product is the reason for the higher cost. ( my house is 5000 square feet and I expect to pay more for my gas bill as I use more then many) sometimes moving the product is the reason for the higher cost.( ie data there is a cost to that. Nothing moves for free) I could give endless examples of this in action...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)