FCC: Net Neutrality Critics Are Flat-Out Wrong

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
And you guys thought the net neutrality debate was over. ;)

Tom Wheeler, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, today defended his agency's move to regulate the Internet, ensuring that broadband players would be unaffected by his "light touch" approach to the rules. "This is no more regulating the Internet than the First Amendment regulates free speech in our country," Wheeler said in a fireside chat Tuesday at the Mobile World Congress trade show.
Click to expand...
 
"Net neutrality as it exists today needs to change," said Nokia Networks CEO Rajeev Suri. It will be hard to ensure rock-solid reliability if carriers can't prioritize some network traffic, he said.
Click to expand...

granted, it seems some have trouble doing it anyway.
 
HE may intend a light touch with regulations, but Obama has NEVER had a light touch with regulations.
 
dgingeri said:
HE may intend a light touch with regulations, but Obama has NEVER had a light touch with regulations.
Click to expand...


*shakes head* 3 posts down is a blame Obama reply, what a shock.... It's not like the whole system (both parties) is the issue, it's definitely because we have a democrat as president.... Once we get a replublican back in the office it will be all rainbows and no taxes or regulation or bla bla bla.
 
When is someone going to write an article about how net neutrality is going to affect me. For the 100th time, I don't care that Tom Wheeler farted.
 
Biznatch said:
*shakes head* 3 posts down is a blame Obama reply, what a shock.... It's not like the whole system (both parties) is the issue, it's definitely because we have a democrat as president.... Once we get a replublican back in the office it will be all rainbows and no taxes or regulation or bla bla bla.
Click to expand...
Nah, it'll be the same bullturd from everyone again.

Doesn't matter if republican or democrat; both are turd.
 
Biznatch said:
*shakes head* 3 posts down is a blame Obama reply, what a shock.... It's not like the whole system (both parties) is the issue, it's definitely because we have a democrat as president.... Once we get a replublican back in the office it will be all rainbows and no taxes or regulation or bla bla bla.
Click to expand...

Hey, I didn't say the Republicans would do away with regulations, I just commented on Obama's heavy-handedness in such things. If Rand Paul gets in the White House, he's likely to do away with such regulations. He's much more of a libertarian than the rest of the GOP. I also think he'd be more inline with what most people actually want. Unfortunately, he's not faring as well in the polls as I had hoped. I just hope to God that Jeb or Ted don't get the GOP nomination at this point.
 
Will the passing of this have any effect on the anti-competition state level bills (like NC H129) Time Warner has lobbied through in the Past?
 
dgingeri said:
Hey, I didn't say the Republicans would do away with regulations, I just commented on Obama's heavy-handedness in such things. If Rand Paul gets in the White House, he's likely to do away with such regulations. He's much more of a libertarian than the rest of the GOP. I also think he'd be more inline with what most people actually want. Unfortunately, he's not faring as well in the polls as I had hoped. I just hope to God that Jeb or Ted don't get the GOP nomination at this point.
Click to expand...

If someone like Rand Paul starts looking good in the pols, 10-15 women(at least one minority) will come out of nowhere accusing him of some sort sexual misconduct. Then the big money nominee will fill the gap and get the nod. Not that I'm a Rand Paul supporter or anything, just saying. He doesn't seem to be the "establishment" guy.

Same thing would have happened to Obama, but he had Chicago politics and certain racial considerations behind him.
 
dgingeri said:
Hey, I didn't say the Republicans would do away with regulations, I just commented on Obama's heavy-handedness in such things. If Rand Paul gets in the White House, he's likely to do away with such regulations. He's much more of a libertarian than the rest of the GOP. I also think he'd be more inline with what most people actually want. Unfortunately, he's not faring as well in the polls as I had hoped. I just hope to God that Jeb or Ted don't get the GOP nomination at this point.
Click to expand...


LOL Rand Paul, that guy is a tool. I thought you said Ron Paul when I first read it. He's one of the only people I would have fully supported running on the republican card (or any for that matter). One of the few people who tried to run last year that had a good head on his shoulder/good intentions, and didn't go full retard.
 
Of course, in fairness, I can't remember the last time the head of a government agency didn't defend their agency's policy (especially when it is his or her policy) ... and no government bureaucrat has the balls to tell us that his policy is the coming of the apocalypse and we should all start buying can goods (even if it is) ;)
 
Nerds have a full on hard on for a former lobbyist for Comcast.

A FORMER LOBBYIST FOR COMCAST.

FOR COMCAST

Why is this continually ignored?

Remember when AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc told the RIAA to pound sand with the six strikes and releasing customer information? You don't think that this regulation is not going to have an effect on things like that in the future?

Everyone should support the basis of net neutrality, but for Christ sake people these guys are not looking out for you or your Netflix.
 
dgingeri said:
HE may intend a light touch with regulations, but Obama has NEVER had a light touch with regulations.
Click to expand...

The FCC is an independent regulatory body. The only interaction it has with the executive branch is nomination for candidates to the board of the FCC which then has to be approved by congress. All FCC powers are directly derived from congressional mandate in the various bills that govern the FCC.

The FCC is actually currently LEGALLY PROHIBITED from releasing the final ruling text by CONGRESSIONAL LAW dating back to 1949 until the dissenters in the ruling have submitted their dissent and the majority in the ruling have replied to the dissent (both things that have to happen AFTER the vote).

And nearly every president has made recommendations to the FCC, including Reagan, Bush SR and Bush JR.

Have I missed a monopoly ISP talking point?
 
Megalith said:
When is someone going to write an article about how net neutrality is going to affect me. For the 100th time, I don't care that Tom Wheeler farted.
Click to expand...

There was a pretty thorough reddit AMA and ELI5 on it the other day.
 
dgingeri said:
Hey, I didn't say the Republicans would do away with regulations, I just commented on Obama's heavy-handedness in such things. If Rand Paul gets in the White House, he's likely to do away with such regulations. He's much more of a libertarian than the rest of the GOP. I also think he'd be more inline with what most people actually want. Unfortunately, he's not faring as well in the polls as I had hoped. I just hope to God that Jeb or Ted don't get the GOP nomination at this point.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul as POTUS wouldn't be able to do jack wrt to the FCC. It is a federally mandated independent body. At most, he would be able to nominate a board member if space opened up.
 
SirOrko said:
Will the passing of this have any effect on the anti-competition state level bills (like NC H129) Time Warner has lobbied through in the Past?
Click to expand...

No. Those have to be brought on a case by case basis to the FCC. On the same day as the net neutrality ruling, the FCC did rule in favor of the two cases that have been brought so far, involving Chattanooga EPB and Wilson, NC Greenlight.
 
I just wish they could have had net neutrality without having to reclassify broadband as a utility.
 
XvMMvX said:
Nerds have a full on hard on for a former lobbyist for Comcast.

A FORMER LOBBYIST FOR COMCAST.

FOR COMCAST

Why is this continually ignored?
Click to expand...

Because we're looking at the substance of the regulations we've seen (thus far) and it appears to be good, despite where it comes from.

Honestly, if you were going to be against anything because the source has some potentially past conflict of interest, you'd have to be against everything. A federal republic's legislature, almost by definition, would seem to be "conflict of interest" as they're representing multiple interests within their own constituency.

kirbyrj said:
I just wish they could have had net neutrality without having to reclassify broadband as a utility.
Click to expand...

They tried that, the ISPs shot themselves in the foot and got it thrown out in court.
 
Here come da taxes, here cum da taxes. Maybe not tomorrow but it will happen. It is a natural function of the government, they screw everything up, the conniving butt heads. You can bet they are licking their chops. Money, money, mine, mine, gimmie, gimmie.
 
Cerulean said:
Nah, it'll be the same bullturd from everyone again.

Doesn't matter if republican or democrat; both are turd.
Click to expand...

^^^ This

republicans and democrats are basically 2 sides of the same coin to give Americans the illusion of choice. Neither side gives any fucks about the state of America or what happens to its people. They both only care about how much money they are getting and pleasing those who give them that money.


Now back on topic. In the case of Net Neutrality it just happens to be that the side that is winning(google, Netflix, etc.) just happen to be on the pro consumer side. All the bad stuff I have heard from the ISPs side about how bad things will get, was already being done by the ISPs. So in a worst case scenario things stay the same. While in a best case the regulations for the ISPs to stop abusing their oligopoly on the internet actually works. Then maybe one day we can catch up to some of the 3rd world countries that make our services look so pitiful.
 
This is no more regulating the Internet than the First Amendment regulates free speech in our country
Click to expand...

Can't wait for these!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Here come da taxes, here cum da taxes. Maybe not tomorrow but it will happen. It is a natural function of the government, they screw everything up, the conniving butt heads. You can bet they are licking their chops. Money, money, mine, mine, gimmie, gimmie.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about the money. Sure, it will come up. But I think the real long term reason for this is to get control on the Internet...specifically the spreading of ideas that are on it. It could also tie into domestic surveillance very nicely. If they "own" the conduit of your communication then in makes it easier to imply they have right of access.

Don't think for a minute that the humans of today are different then the humans of the past when it comes to opposition, dissidence, and propaganda. It's dangerous no matter what time period.
 
McFry said:
Dont think it can get any worse than deliberate crippling of a competitors service.
Click to expand...

Exactly, what the ISPs were doing is completely anti competitive behavior. How people can be against stopping someone from screwing them. TWC, Comcast, ATT, and Verizon and a few others were screwing all their customers. Not maybe, or might have, they were. Making them stop screwing their customers and their competitors is not a bad thing. So now they will have to compete with the competition with price and services rather than just degrade the services of a competitor.

You guys crying that the sky is falling need to follow the money. And it doesn't go back to Obama and the dems so they can take your interwebs away. It goes back to the competitors to those ISPs such google and Netflix. This time the consumers just happen to have some big players on their team so the FCC supporting google and Netflix is actually a win for us too.
 
kirbyrj said:
I just wish they could have had net neutrality without having to reclassify broadband as a utility.
Click to expand...

What is the benefit to these new rules with over 300 pages of yet to be public regulation?
What problem did it solve?

It made a mess of Netflix paying to compensate ISP for using the majority of their network capacity which only is fair.

But perhaps most disturbing, and under-reported is this: The radicals want political speech on the internet declared to be political activity. As such, through yet another abusive arm of government, this time the Federal Elections Commission, the federal government would actually decide what is, and isn’t acceptable as free speech on the internet. In the United States of America.”
Click to expand...
CNS

Just for the sake of discussion assume that is true. What if the government bureaucrats decide regulate bloggers for expressing their opinions?
 
New Taxes by Federal Government on the Internet:

To make their proposals palatable, network neutrality advocates suggest that the FCC might in its discretion “forbear” from various regulations. But FCC forbearance takes years with uncertain outcomes. And the FCC likely does not have the discretion to find that some interstate telecommunications services pay fees and others do not. Inevitably, network neutrality with “telecommunications services” will lead to new fees and regulations that will harm the Internet.
Click to expand...
Forbes

You don't mind your Internet costs going up right?
 
XvMMvX said:
Nerds have a full on hard on for a former lobbyist for Comcast.

A FORMER LOBBYIST FOR COMCAST.

FOR COMCAST

Why is this continually ignored?
..
Everyone should support the basis of net neutrality, but for Christ sake people these guys are not looking out for you or your Netflix.
Click to expand...


What is your explanation when Comcast and the other cable monopoly buddies aggressively campaigned against this passing?

It shouldn't be a surprising that a guy who is familiar with the industry is now associated with regulating that industry...be suspicious sure, but I'm less suspicious after how much comcast and time warner etc claimed this would be the end of the internet.
 
smangular said:
To make their proposals palatable, network neutrality advocates suggest that the FCC might in its discretion “forbear” from various regulations. But FCC forbearance takes years with uncertain outcomes. And the FCC likely does not have the discretion to find that some interstate telecommunications services pay fees and others do not. Inevitably, network neutrality with “telecommunications services” will lead to new fees and regulations that will harm the Internet.
Click to expand...

You don't mind your Internet costs going up right?
Click to expand...

Not with what you quoted. Like so much of news today that's not news that's word salad. Basically it's an amalgamation of words that mean something could take place but the "news" paper didn't actually do the work to verify it. So essentially it's worthless.

That's kind of the point of news. The only time might and could should be used during news content is if it's someone giving a weather report.
 
kac77 said:
Not with what you quoted. Like so much of news today that's not news that's word salad. Basically it's an amalgamation of words that mean something could take place but the "news" paper didn't actually do the work to verify it. So essentially it's worthless.
Click to expand...

Ok for the sake of discussion lets skip that mainstream news source that was linked.

Simply put it costs money to comply with regulations. Do you believe this will not increase costs ensuring everything complies with over 300 pages of rules? Legal reviews, paperwork, ect.
 
The corporate backlash and "it'll curb innovation" talk is nonsense. It's just them throwing a tissy fit. Remember Obamacare? All those CEOs saying their industry would suffer and they'd have to lay off a ton of their workforce? Some even said if their employees didn't vote for Romney, the economic fallout could cost everyone their jobs. It's all bull.
 
XvMMvX said:
Nerds have a full on hard on for a former lobbyist for Comcast.

A FORMER LOBBYIST FOR COMCAST.

FOR COMCAST

Why is this continually ignored?

Remember when AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc told the RIAA to pound sand with the six strikes and releasing customer information? You don't think that this regulation is not going to have an effect on things like that in the future?

Everyone should support the basis of net neutrality, but for Christ sake people these guys are not looking out for you or your Netflix.
Click to expand...

We don't ignore it. But you shouldn't condemn all his actions based on that. It's like saying a nice person you know couldn't have killed someone, even if all the evidence points to him killing that someone. Actions matter more than their past. And so far, the actions seems good.

I'm sure, anyone who knows he was a lobbyist, is a bit more critical when taking a look at his action, to see if there is something else there, but so far. Not too shabby.
 
smangular said:
It made a mess of Netflix paying to compensate ISP for using the majority of their network capacity which only is fair.
Click to expand...

The traffic that paying customers are paying for and requesting. If it weren't for services like Netlfix, companies like Verzion wouldn't have any demand for their internet services. What does Verizon provide? that's right, nothing.
 
smangular said:
What is the benefit to these new rules with over 300 pages of yet to be public regulation?
Click to expand...

It's 8 pages not 300, and the Republican minority who voted Nay are refusing to finalize their dissent or it would be.

Please keep that in mind.
 
I find it stupid people are complainng about length. Every bill is extremely long for what it does. ToS that basically tell you, they got your shit and will use it, is long as hell.

These people just complain about everything the govt does. And I thoght I was cynical of the govt. But people should realize too much or little of a thing is not a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top