Jump to content

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


JThorson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cue the kicking and screaming from some ISPs any moment now.  Well, here is a message to those ISPs.

 

If Net Neutrality will stifle your investment -- because you cannot further monetize your network with non neutral practices for short term profit -- then you are free to leave at any time.  Exit the business.  Just drop off your public property of easements and spectrum by the door on your way out.  Other forward thinking, less short term profit obsessed ISPs, as well as municipal utilities, co-ops, etc., with an interest in the public good and a long term focus on ROI will fill the void you left.

 

AJ

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't people be better off reading the 300 plus pages that spell out the regulations rather than a press release? And unless I'm not seeing it that link doesn't even include the dissenting opinions.

 

I'm not for this for a variety of reasons one of them being I have no idea what it entails and from reading comments today from supporters it seems they don't either. If these rules create more hoops to jump through or hurdles that end up being barriers to entry I can see the big incumbents secretly liking this proposal. If government wants more competition in wireless why don't they stop hoarding spectrum and just flood the market with it driving down prices? Selling in dribs and drabs just ensures the big dogs will win.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't people be better off reading the 300 plus pages that spell out the regulations rather than a press release? And unless I'm not seeing it that link doesn't even include the dissenting opinions.

 

The full order has not yet been officially released.  It is nowhere to be found.  But if you can, go ahead and provide a link to it.  S4GRU is all about total information.

 

And the dissenting statements -- as party line as they are apt to be -- have not yet been disclosed either.  Otherwise, they would have been included in the news release.  That is standard FCC practice.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cue the kicking and screaming from some ISPs any moment now. Well, here is a message to those ISPs.

 

If Net Neutrality will stifle your investment -- because you cannot further monetize your network with non neutral practices for short term profit -- then you are free to leave at any time. Exit the business. Just drop off your public property of easements and spectrum by the door on your way out. Other forward thinking, less short term profit obsessed ISPs, as well as municipal utilities, co-ops, etc., with an interest in the public good and a long term focus on ROI will fill the void you left.

 

AJ

Except it's the small ISPs that have complained about title ii

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The full order has not yet been officially released. It is nowhere to be found. But if you can, go ahead and provide a link to it. S4GRU is all about total information.

 

And the dissenting statements -- as party line as they are apt to be -- have not yet been disclosed either. Otherwise, they would have been included in the news release. That is standard FCC practice.

 

AJ

Yet senator obama demanded in 2007 that fcc release the plan pre vote and said 30 days wasn't enough.

 

http://techfreedom.org/post/111905535764/obama-used-to-care-about-fcc-transparency-before

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me my invoke my inner "60 Minutes" Mike Wallace...

 

Really? Just the small ISPs? All of them? And none of the big ISPs?

 

AJ

Why are the small ISPs and wisps against this? You want things to be run by coops and such yet they're against this proposal.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet senator obama demanded in 2007 that fcc release the plan pre vote and said 30 days wasn't enough.

 

http://techfreedom.org/post/111905535764/obama-used-to-care-about-fcc-transparency-before

 

Your citation comes from a noted right wing "think tank" blog.  And the author is Berin Szoka -- the less I say about that guy, the better.  View the piece through that filter.

 

AJ

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your citation comes from a noted right wing "think tank" blog. And the author is Berin Szoka -- the less I say about that guy, the better. View the piece through that filter.

 

AJ

Did obama say that or not? Do you want me to find you a transcript on a different site?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are the small ISPs and wisps against this? You want things to be run by coops and such yet they're against this proposal.

 

You did not answer my questions, maximus.  You just returned with more questions of your own.  Surprise, surprise, surprise.  A leopard cannot change its spots.

 

AJ

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You citation comes from a noted right wing "think tank" blog.  And the author is Berin Szoka -- the less I say about that guy, the better.  View the piece through that filter.

 

AJ

 

And ars, gizmodo, the verge are all left-wing. Doesn't mean that when they state facts I ignore them.

 

But I guess you care so here's the text of Senator Obama's letter from a source that you would like:

Although such a proposal may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the Commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate.

 

http://www.openleft.com/diary/2982/

 

Seems like the FCC should've followed Senator Obama's recommendation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And ars, gizmodo, the verge are all left-wing. Doesn't mean that when they state facts I ignore them.

 

But I guess you care so here's the text of Senator Obama's letter from a source that you would like:

 

Do you think that a statement made eight years ago by someone who was a senator then but is president now is necessarily relevant today?  Could circumstances, responsibilities, and perspectives have changed?

 

But if we are just posting hit pieces about people and their actions, here is a far more topical, nuanced, and recent article -- from an actual journalistic establishment, too -- about Berin Szoka and his "non profit think tank:"

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/05/opponents-of-net-neutrality-have-begun-some-grassroots-organizing-of-their-own/

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that a statement made eight years ago by someone who was a senator then but is president now is necessarily relevant today?  Could circumstances, responsibilities, and perspectives have changed?

 

But if we are just posting hit pieces about people and their actions, here is a far more topical, nuanced, and recent article -- from an actual journalistic establishment, too -- about Berin Szoka and his "non profit think tank:"

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/05/opponents-of-net-neutrality-have-begun-some-grassroots-organizing-of-their-own/

 

AJ

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what happens, some people will be for and some people will be against this. I don't see this getting enacted anytime soon. I am guessing it will be awhile before these laws take place. I for one am okay with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what happens, some people will be for and some people will be against this. I don't see this getting enacted anytime soon. I am guessing it will be awhile before these laws take place. I for one am okay with it.

 

We have to swallow it before we're told what's in it. Great for the matrix, not so good for public policy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is this pretty much not allowing your provider to block content and slow down your data. So does this not allow wireless carriers to not throttle your data. This is my view on the topic or what I picked up. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing about all of this that worries me is the alarming number of "Does this mean Verizon can't throttle my grandfathered unlimited plan anymore?" comments.

 

Wireless is totally different from wired from a network management and usage standpoint, yet it seems that the vast, vast majority of people don't understand that and want no-throttle (of any kind) policies enacted for mobile.

 

I wish one of the big-name tech sites would look at this issue and maybe do some writing on it.

 

Besides that, this is great news. Consumers will benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...