FCC Revokes Net Neutrality [WAS: FCC Approves Net Neutrality]

[jeffcarp]

I am definitely not a fan of the current administration and my politics tends to be right of center, though not a big focus of my life in general. Given all of that, I support this FCC action and I do so, in this particular case, for one reason. On this issue, I trust the government more than I trust Comcast and Verizon Wireless.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I am definitely not a fan of the current administration and my politics tends to be right of center, though not a big focus of my life in general. Given all of that, I support this FCC action and I do so, in this particular case, for one reason. On this issue, I trust the government more than I trust Comcast and Verizon Wireless.

You trust the government to not censor based on ideology cause they already tried doing it in 2009

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillM]

I am definitely not a fan of the current administration and my politics tends to be right of center, though not a big focus of my life in general. Given all of that, I support this FCC action and I do so, in this particular case, for one reason. On this issue, I trust the government more than I trust Comcast and Verizon Wireless.

The gang that gives us the NSA and CIA is more trustworthy than a cable company? You may be reading too many tech blogs And the former head of the NSA calls himself a libertarian so labels don't mean much anymore.

[jeffcarp]

You trust the government to not censor based on ideology cause they already tried doing it in 2009

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't comment because I don't know what you are referring to.

[jeffcarp]

The gang that gives us the NSA and CIA is more trustworthy than a cable company? You may be reading too many tech blogs And the former head of the NSA calls himself a libertarian so labels don't mean much anymore.

ON THIS ISSUE. I said that for a reason.

 

Yes, I think it is much more likely for my cable company to favor and/or degrade my access to services based on their own corporate power/interests than I believe that the "evil govt" is going to regulate the Internet in negative fashion.

[lou99/maximus1987]

ON THIS ISSUE. I said that for a reason.

 

Yes, I think it is much more likely for my cable company to favor and/or degrade my access to services based on their own corporate power/interests than I believe that the "evil govt" is going to regulate the Internet in negative fashion.

Regardless of what it is, Do you consider the government squelching opposing viewpoints ON THE INTERNET a bad thing?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeffcarp]

Of course that is a bad thing.

[joshuam]

We should rename this thread to "Conspiracy discussion" ????

[skid71]

Regardless of what it is, Do you consider the government squelching opposing viewpoints ON THE INTERNET a bad thing?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Squelching YOUR inane and non stop squabbling?

In a New York minute.

[lou99/maximus1987]

Net Neutrality: How White House Thwarted FCC Chief

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-white-house-thwarted-fcc-chief-on-internet-rules-1423097522

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lou99/maximus1987]

"Net neutrality, this is a tricky debate to have. But fundamentally I believe that access should be open. You should be open and fair in terms of Internet access," Suri said during a press briefing here on the sidelines of the Mobile World Congress trade show. "But there are some services that simply require a different level of connectivity and a different level of service. Driverless cars--you're not going to do this in a 'best effort' network."

 

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/nokia-ceo-argues-against-paid-prioritization-net-neutrality-introduces-prog/2015-03-01

[lou99/maximus1987]

Title of this thread is inaccurate: FCC passed net neutrality AND Title II.

[utiz4321]

All net neutrality does is shift the profits around from those that provide access to content to content providers and insures things like content providers can't pay for the customers not to have "free" (ie not use data that they pay for) to their content. Honestly, it does no good to the consumer and never understood why it is so popular I think it is because all the content creators (ie every website in existence) has an incentive to promote it because the profits of the industry shifts to them. But I think a market model would in the end provide more net consumer welfare than a state regulated utility model, after all just look at all the problems there are with innovations in the utility sectors.

[WiWavelength]

All net neutrality does is shift the profits around from those that provide access to content to content providers and insures things like content providers can't pay for the customers not to have "free" (ie not use data that they pay for) to their content. Honestly, it does no good to the consumer and never understood why it is so popular I think it is because all the content creators (ie every website in existence) has an incentive to promote it because the profits of the industry shifts to them. But I think a market model would in the end provide more net consumer welfare than a state regulated utility model, after all just look at all the problems there are with innovations in the utility sectors.

 

Your take sounds reasonable, but it is specious.  "Content" is the reason for "channel" in the first place.  No content, no channel.

 

Now, channel wants a cut of the content action.  Channel does not want to be effectively a "dumb pipe," but that is exactly what the public expects channel to be.  There is your consumer good.

 

So, channel can acknowledge that maybe it chose the wrong side of the equation if it wanted content profits.  But it can still accept moderate yet predictable profits -- especially long term.  Or channel can get the hell off public property and exit the market.

 

AJ

[utiz4321]

Your take sounds reasonable, but it is specious. "Content" is the reason for "channel" in the first place. No content, no channel.

 

Now, channel wants a cut of the content action. Channel does not want to be effectively a "dumb pipe," but that is exactly what the public expects channel to be. There is your consumer good.

 

So, channel can acknowledge that maybe it chose the wrong side of the equation if it wanted content profits. But it can still accept moderate yet predictable profits -- especially long term. Or channel can get the hell off public property and exit the market.

 

AJ

Well my argument is only as specious as yours, after all there is no content if a channel doesn't exist to bring people to it. It is a symbiotic relationship as all market relations are. As far what the public wants that is expressed in what the public is willing to pay for, but the public doesn't care about the distribution of profits nor really should they, they should just pay for what they want. Further, the public might want things like Pandora not to count against their data, I don't know, the market will reward T-Mobile if true.

As far as fiber or coax cable being our property I just do see any justification for that statement. If you mean airwaves "we" sold the rights to those and make any future airwaves less valuable by turning isps into utilities for little gain to the public and big gain to special interests (content providers).

[centermedic]

The issue is making the FCC proposals public before they're voted on.

 

"Most transparent administration", remember that?

 

Since when is the principle in transparency in FCC proposals subject to change based on circumstances, responsibilities and perspectives?

Unless the circumstance is out of power vs in power? Is that a valid excuse to demand transparency from an FCC of the opposite part yet reject it when you appointed its majority?

 

 

And just because someone is anti-consumer on one position doesn't mean they can't be pro-consumer on another position:

You oppose Sprint unlocking its phones because it's not fair for Sprint - anti consumer - but your other stated telecom views that I can think of are pro consumer.

The real question here is does it make good public policy to broadcast such things before a government entity votes on it? Keep in mind that even the founding fathers had serious questions as to the ability of the common man to make serious decisions that may affect he nation. Hence, we have a representative republic and a electorial college instead of a true democracy. You see where I am going with this?

[centermedic]

Internet speech regulation:

 

Despite this success, the FEC finds itself locked in a renewed debate over the regulation of online political opinions. The debate was triggered last October when commissioners split 3-3 in a case involving a group that posted two political videos on YouTube without reporting them to the FEC. Three commissioners (including the co-author of this piece) voted to exempt the YouTube videos from regulation under the 2006 Internet rule while three voted to investigate and regulate the organization. Two months later, commissioners split again over the metes and bounds of the 2006 Internet freedom rule in a case involving an organization that simply posted political news releases on its own website. Even though it would require four votes for the FEC to regulate the Internet, these close votes and the risk of idiosyncratic case-by-case enforcement inevitably discourage citizens and groups from speaking freely online about politics.

 

Following these deadlocks, the FEC held a hearing this month on Internet regulation and other issues. About 5,000 citizens submitted comments urging the FEC to keep its hands off the Internet. Three former FEC commissioners and five nonprofit groups testified that the Internet should not be regulated. Even “a little” regulation, they maintained, would suppress significant amounts of political speech — for no compelling reason. Significantly, as one former FEC commissioner testified, a decade of free Internet speech has not given rise to corruption. Freedom has served us well.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/fcc-internet-regulations-ajit-pai-115399_Page2.html#ixzz3StLWfZPm

????What does this have to do with the FCC and net neutrality?

[lou99/maximus1987]

????What does this have to do with the FCC and net neutrality?

Because the fcc passed net neutrality ANNNND title II.

Not just net neutrality.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[centermedic]

I just don't understand how anyone, especially the most ardent supporters here, can support something that only 5 people had any idea what was actually in it. If you can blindly support something like this, it's sad. At least know what's in it before you throw your support behind it.

 

Most people point to the banning of throttling as to why this is so great. What about the other 300+ pages? It didn't take 322 pages to ban throttling. What if it turns out the regulations include massive fees that will ultimately be passed on to the consumer? What if, as Mark Cuban predicts, regular television starts to buffer because TV stations' Internet streams can no longer be prioritized? What about surgeons who perform robotic surgery on another continent? These are things that need priority.

 

Bottom line, this is an unconstitutional overreach of the federal government. If it's that important, how about at least Congressional approval or better yet, a Constitutional Amendment that each State gets to vote on?

 

Sent from my Note 4.

I was with you right up to the end. The internet received its first substantial infrastructure investment from the Federal Government. Therefore it is a public utility and the FCC is correct in treating it as such. It is not unconstitutional.

[centermedic]

Because the fcc passed net neutrality ANNNND title II.

Not just net neutrality.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you referring to the part that would allow the FCC to regulate ISP's? Please dont make me guess. Just state your meaning. Thanks.

[centermedic]

You need to listen to some of the more conservative / libertarian members of Congress, such as Rand Paul. He speaks about it all the time. You are right though that most Republicans have stayed quiet about it, unfortunately.

 

The federal government is completely out of step with what was originally intended. If you haven't read the Constitution lately, read it again. It's pretty amazing how limited the federal government should be. Over time, more and more powers have been usurped from the states. I just wish more elected federal officials would abide by the tenth amendment.

 

Sent from my Note 4.

I agree. But the expansion of the federal government is not a new phenomenon. It has been argued about before the formation of the country and has expanded since the formation of the country, usually based on a specific fear.

[centermedic]

Who decides what's stupid?

 

The point of free speech is that no one gets to decide what is ok speech with very few limitations.

 

I support free speech. It's scary but not a surprise that you seem to not as it has become normal for libs to want to censor whether it's here or in Europe.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally, I am more concerned with those who make a conscious decision to promote lies and slander. This is what the FEC should be concerned with and to a lesser extent the FCC.

[utiz4321]

Personally, I am more concerned with those who make a conscious decision to promote lies and slander. This is what the FEC should be concerned with and to a lesser extent the FCC.

Why should either care who gets what share of the profits in this industry?

[centermedic]

Why should either care who gets what share of the profits in this industry?

Not talking about profits. I am talking about the willful dissemination of misinformation.

[utiz4321]

Not talking about profits. I am talking about the willful dissemination of disinformation.

I am sorry I might have missed something reading through your posts, how doss net neutrality accomplish this?