FCC To Propose New 'Net Neutrality' Rules

c@Nc3r said:
so would a bullet to the head
Click to expand...

which is why we need to start compiling a list of all these corporate/government shit stains, who make these decisions that will fuck over most of the country, just to line their pockets. Put the list online for anyone to see and 'act' on. Then random anonymous people can start going down that list eliminating these corrupt greedy asshole. Maybe once they actually have something to truly fear, the people they are fucking, they will start making some better decisions.

This is what I pray for every night, and the only thing that will move this country back in the right direction. Those people are useless to the world anyway.
 
With regards to the overarching problems facing our society, government is the source of them. You cannot give a small group of people a monopoly on force... to protect against a small group of people getting a monopoly on force. Whether or not these people accept bribes from business, isn't the issue. The issue is the monopoly on force. This will always be abused, some how, some way. The solution is to remove force from the equation.

Only when society questions its fundamental assumption that we need a government (which makes us modern day free range slaves), will we have true freedom and equality.
 
c@Nc3r said:
so would a bullet to the head
Click to expand...

Dead men don't learn lessons. Telling the entire Western world that the economy just vanished because the American government can't be trusted with their own country will teach the entire planet a lesson.
 
Color me not surprised at all.. corruption is the name of the game in today's government.
 
Look, either all data is treated neutrally regardless of origin or we are screwed. There is no middle ground here. Why is this so hard to fathom for people.
 
Personally, *tin foil hat time*, I've told friends and family that this country is not too far from another revolution/civil war. It's sad to say, but with the current state of the government and how entrenched they are, I don't see how it's going to change. Those thinking they can just vote it out are lying to themselves. At the end of the day there is very little difference between the Dems and GOP. They're all out for themselves, not to help the people.
 
Methadras said:
Look, either all data is treated neutrally regardless of origin or we are screwed. There is no middle ground here. Why is this so hard to fathom for people.
Click to expand...

Lets say I own a baseball field. I wish to rent it out on weekends.
I get two identical offers this week, one from a baseball team, the other a rugby team.

As a property owner, I should be allowed to charge the rugby team a larger sum, or give preference to the baseball team.
The rugby team is going to put more strain on my nice field. I will necessarily have to use more resources to keep it in the state I advertise it to be.

Now, lets say I have a stick up my ass about rugby, and price gouge them to hell and back.

In a functioning market, the team would pack up and send their dollars to my competitor down the street. They post about their discontent on online, and I lose a couple of repeat customers as well, maybe even baseball teams.

Uh-oh, the local government decides to use exclusive contracts and rent seeking. Too many fields are owned by me now. Rather than changing the local government or exercising market forces of any kind, the local populace decides to petition the federal government to enact sweeping legislation, denying property owners of their rights to discretion.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Lets say I own a baseball field. I wish to rent it out on weekends.
I get two identical offers this week, one from a baseball team, the other a rugby team.

As a property owner, I should be allowed to charge the rugby team a larger sum, or give preference to the baseball team.
The rugby team is going to put more strain on my nice field. I will necessarily have to use more resources to keep it in the state I advertise it to be.

Now, lets say I have a stick up my ass about rugby, and price gouge them to hell and back.

In a functioning market, the team would pack up and send their dollars to my competitor down the street. They post about their discontent on online, and I lose a couple of repeat customers as well, maybe even baseball teams.

Uh-oh, the local government decides to use exclusive contracts and rent seeking. Too many fields are owned by me now. Rather than changing the local government or exercising market forces of any kind, the local populace decides to petition the federal government to enact sweeping legislation, denying property owners of their rights to discretion.
Click to expand...

That's actually a good point, buuuuut in a free market situations like this might naturally result in a monopoly on geographically limited resources like land for baseball fields so that the distance to get to a field that someone can rent are too far so there's still a need for someone or something to be oversight to ensure a monopoly scenario isn't abused by a single business entity. Of course its more important in services that are provided by competitive businesses that are more critical than baseball like telephones, radio communications, and that kinda "essential" stuff.

Free markets are a good thing, but they need oversight of some sort and the only entity in a position to do that in our societal structure is a government.
 
*might* result > current demonstrated result via ...government...contracts
 
This is just more Government thuggary at its best.

Anyways FCC cant make law, they dont have the legal authority, the congress is the only body that can make laws... not even the president regardless of his "Pen and Executive order".
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Ma Bell.
Click to expand...

G.H. Loeb, "The Communications Act Policy Toward Competition: A Failure to Communicate," Duke Law Journal, vol. 1 (1978), p. 31.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2650&context=dlj

According to its proponents, the consequence of this new model of the law of telecommunications regulation is the emergence of four sub-principles designed to implement the overarching goal of protecting the franchised monopoly network. First, the FCC may not permit the entry into the industry of telecommunications services or facilities that operate outside the network itself and that duplicate existing services without providing users more than what is available from the unified, franchised network - the "not duplicative competition' principle. Second, the FCC may not permit the offering of communications services or facilities from outside the network which carry a risk of being technologically incompatible with the network offerings - the "technical harm" principle. Third, the FCC may not permit providers from outside the network to offer alternative communications services or facilities which, because they may be used interchangeably with network-originated offerings, threaten the revenues and thus the economic heath and stability of the network providers - the "economic harm" or "cream-skimming" principle. Finally, the FCC may not prohibit the network from providing any new telecommunications-related service or facility, whether within or beyond the scope of conventional network offerings, particularly where providers outside the network have begun or are planning to make that service or facility available - the "unrestricted entry" principle.

These four principles constitute the operative rules of the new model of the Communications Act. In combination, they suggest that the fundamental purpose of regulation of telecommunications under the Communications Act is to ensure the presence of a single, expansive, unified communications network which operates as a monopoly and is protected from competition which either duplicates existing network services or threatens to do technical or economic harm to the network.
Click to expand...

Government created the monopoly.
 
gathagan said:
Why is this the one commodity that people expect to pay the same whether they only use the internet for email or they use it to stream 1080p content from Netflix?

Then you add the irrational expectation that an ISP should keep its entire infrastructure running on cutting-edge technology without passing on that constant investment cost to the people who are using it.
Click to expand...
Why is that expectation irrational? They make plenty of money to re-invest in their business. Except they don't. They get subsidies so that we are actually paying to improve their infrastructure so that they can keep more of the profits.
ravx25 said:
Personally, *tin foil hat time*, I've told friends and family that this country is not too far from another revolution/civil war. It's sad to say, but with the current state of the government and how entrenched they are, I don't see how it's going to change. Those thinking they can just vote it out are lying to themselves. At the end of the day there is very little difference between the Dems and GOP. They're all out for themselves, not to help the people.
Click to expand...
I agree to some extent. A revolution of some sort will not be required to bring America back on track, as is made obvious by things only getting worse by the minute. The problem is that the same corporate interests which are making laws which benefit themselves are also engaging in social engineering so that the people who should rise against them have no wind in their sales. They've really considered the whole equation.

Today's America will never rise to arms.

FWIW, a recent Princeton study has officailly found America to be an Oligarchy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
 
aardvark sandwich said:
G.H. Loeb, "The Communications Act Policy Toward Competition: A Failure to Communicate," Duke Law Journal, vol. 1 (1978), p. 31.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2650&context=dlj



Government created the monopoly.
Click to expand...

Oh...that's interesting.

I still worry about corporate entities reaching a state of monopoly and then abusing it when they control a market. I think that, without current regulatory controls, it isn't a might happen, but a will happen thing.
 
Red Machine D said:
Dead men don't learn lessons. Telling the entire Western world that the economy just vanished because the American government can't be trusted with their own country will teach the entire planet a lesson.
Click to expand...
70 years without a World War is quite a bit better than Europe's track record of 20 years. But good luck with that.
 
the key is not outlawing disruptive technology out of a misguided sense of protectionism.

creative destruction is a beautiful thing.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Oh...that's interesting.

I still worry about corporate entities reaching a state of monopoly and then abusing it when they control a market. I think that, without current regulatory controls, it isn't a might happen, but a will happen thing.
Click to expand...

FCC is enabling it here. Not only looking the other way to an intra-technology monopoly, but enabling and cross-technology monopoly. Regulators are a buffer between Congress and public backlash and nothing more.

Solution for the immediate problem, You can't provide TV and internet both. TV makers have to sell access to their cable in an open auction to highest bidder (no kickbacks) for ISP's to rent. Or the reverse. Easy move and I believe within the authority of the FCC or consistent with similar situations. But won't be done unless the public pressures congress for it.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Lets say I own a baseball field. I wish to rent it out on weekends.
I get two identical offers this week, one from a baseball team, the other a rugby team.

As a property owner, I should be allowed to charge the rugby team a larger sum, or give preference to the baseball team.
The rugby team is going to put more strain on my nice field. I will necessarily have to use more resources to keep it in the state I advertise it to be.

Now, lets say I have a stick up my ass about rugby, and price gouge them to hell and back.

In a functioning market, the team would pack up and send their dollars to my competitor down the street. They post about their discontent on online, and I lose a couple of repeat customers as well, maybe even baseball teams.

Uh-oh, the local government decides to use exclusive contracts and rent seeking. Too many fields are owned by me now. Rather than changing the local government or exercising market forces of any kind, the local populace decides to petition the federal government to enact sweeping legislation, denying property owners of their rights to discretion.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but let's take a step back for a second. What you are describing is your management of your discrete property. Is the Internet discrete property, or the data that flows through it discrete property? If they are discrete properties, then I can see your case being true. However, if they aren't considering the virtual space of the data flow and the pipes it flows in, then?
 
Methadras said:
I understand what you are saying, but let's take a step back for a second. What you are describing is your management of your discrete property. Is the Internet discrete property, or the data that flows through it discrete property? If they are discrete properties, then I can see your case being true. However, if they aren't considering the virtual space of the data flow and the pipes it flows in, then?
Click to expand...

Be careful ... most things that flow through pipes or lines are metered (water, electricity, gas, etc) ... to a certain extent a metered internet does make sense ... should someone who only reads email pay the same as someone who downloads or consumes gigabytes of materials each month ...

there is no direct path from the internet content owner to the internet consumer ... the people who host and channel the information should have a say so in how much they have to channel and how fast they have to provide it ... they are not dumb pipes ... and if people want to turn them into dumb pipes (like water, electricity, and the like) then they should pay for what they consume ;)
 
chockomonkey said:
edit: A revolution of some sort WILL BE required
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. You and what picks and stones army against my Abram tank battalion, armada of air power, and swaths of highly armed highly trained military professionals? :rolleyes:
 
Cerulean said:
Good luck with that. You and what picks and stones army against my Abram tank battalion, armada of air power, and swaths of highly armed highly trained military professionals? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Chinese - i.e. manpower can outweigh technology. There are enough weapons in this subculture to allow for it - not that it would as chocko pointed out since companies are social engineering America to death as well. Anyhow, it only takes a small snowball to get the drift going; that's how revolutions start. How eager do you think the military will be to fire upon its own people? I know you see it in other countries, but not in countries where privileges abound like America. Of course it all depends on how big the crowd is too though.
 
You think the majority of America will fight? :rolleyes: Take a look at all those on wellfare and the millions of women who only care to live a simple life and raise a family, etc. :D I know I won't be picking up a gun to take someone else' life, even if it means my enslavement.
 
Cerulean said:
You think the majority of America will fight? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Right now? In it's current state, absolutely not. It takes propaganda and just cause. It's been stated before but at what point will we lose enough freedoms that the general public stands up for itself? Civilizations go ages sometimes before that happens. It's not to be understated that it can't or won't happen though.

Cerulean said:
Take a look at all those on wellfare and the millions of women who only care to live a simple life and raise a family, etc. :D
Click to expand...

This alludes to the social engineering aspect obviously.

Cerulean said:
I know I won't be picking up a gun to take someone else' life, even if it means my enslavement.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you're being facetious there; if not you're part of the problem and deserve what comes your way. Human beings are social creatures, you wouldn't be expected to go it alone.
 
ravx25 said:
Tell that to the Chinese - i.e. manpower can outweigh technology. There are enough weapons in this subculture to allow for it - not that it would as chocko pointed out since companies are social engineering America to death as well. Anyhow, it only takes a small snowball to get the drift going; that's how revolutions start. How eager do you think the military will be to fire upon its own people? I know you see it in other countries, but not in countries where privileges abound like America. Of course it all depends on how big the crowd is too though.
Click to expand...

First, Americans are too diverse to move as a group in rebellion ... we couldn't even do it in a uniform fashion the last time we had a civil war and there are even more divisions now ... chances of Americans attempting to violently overthrow the government are slim to none

Second, the old axiom from the days of Rome still holds true ... "Give them Bread and Circuses" ... as long as Americans have access to "stuff" they will be fat and happy and in no mood to violently overthrow the government

Third, even passive resistance is half hearted (cough cough Occupy Wallstreet cough cough) ... they didn't really disrupt much and once the government started talking about throwing them some bones on student load reform they all backed off

Revolutions are generally messy, violent, and disruptive ... Americans do not have the stomach for that level of pain unless things get REALLY bad (and we are not even close to being there yet) ;)
 
Bomber18 said:
Politicians openly lie to us when running for an election between two shitty choices. If you really think sending a letter is going to a make a difference good for you, i'm past that point. I'm done voting as well which only feels like playing their game to make people feel like they have a voice.

This government is no longer ours, it's now run by businesses with money and I think the only recourse we the people have is to stock up on guns.
Click to expand...

^
All emailing my representative ever got me was put on their mailing list so they can send me spam.
 
Time to declare the internet a public utility, and tell big money to fuck off.

We need to do it before the internet is lost.
 
MisterHipster said:
Time to declare the internet a public utility, and tell big money to fuck off.

We need to do it before the internet is lost.
Click to expand...

Yeah because none of the other public utilities, like electricity and water, are interesting to big money ... oh wait, they are ;)
 
Stiler said:
" At the same time, you are not discriminating against specific websites or people, you are discriminating against particular types of traffic."

Thus defeating the point of "neutrality."
Click to expand...
I suppose that depends on your definition of "neutrality". For me, it means giving equal consideration to all traffic. That does not directly translate to treating all traffic the same.

Some traffic needs a big pipe but doesn't care for latency. Some traffic needs very little data transfer but is latency sensitive.

If treating both equally would mean that one would saturate the pipe and dramatically increase latency for the other, then I wouldn't consider that very good. If giving one a little bit of priority for low latency bandwidth once in a will allow one to work really well, and give the other negligable performance penalty to the other, then I consider that a win.

However, on the other hand, many would argue that if you ever get into a situation where your pipe is fully saturated (as an internet provider), that you should seriously be considering upgrading your infrastructure anyways.

Also would you not think say for example, Netflix pays more money and amazon doesn't, so Netflix streaming works better, which leads to amazon losing customers and going to netflix.

That is discrimination.
.
Click to expand...
Definitly a tricky topic. I mean, is it wrong to pay fedex extra money to get 2-day shipping (thereby getting priority over all the other packages) ?
 
jpm100 said:
FCC is enabling it here. Not only looking the other way to an intra-technology monopoly, but enabling and cross-technology monopoly. Regulators are a buffer between Congress and public backlash and nothing more.

Solution for the immediate problem, You can't provide TV and internet both. TV makers have to sell access to their cable in an open auction to highest bidder (no kickbacks) for ISP's to rent. Or the reverse. Easy move and I believe within the authority of the FCC or consistent with similar situations. But won't be done unless the public pressures congress for it.
Click to expand...

I don't really care for this particular round of proposals at all either and I don't think there's anything good that comes from cable TV companies also being the primary internet service providers, but I don't think when all this started that anyone was really anticipating how internet connections would be potentially competing with cable TV due to streamed media either. In fact, I don't think that 15 years ago when broadband stuff was just starting to become possible in homes, that the cable companies even had any idea it was gonna turn out like this.
 
kbrickley said:
Yeah because none of the other public utilities, like electricity and water, are interesting to big money ... oh wait, they are ;)
Click to expand...

We don't pay nearly as much for electricity or water compared to the rest of the world. Most of the States that deregulated energy actually have suspended the practice.

Now the Internet? LOL We have some of the highest prices of the developed world.

Making the Internet a public utility would be a good thing, if it were possible politically. Feel free to take a look at places like Chattanooga, TN (they have their own public ISP utility).

When you compare the download speeds of the highest tier residential broadband services offered by Comcast and Chattanooga EPB, the local fiber optic municipal broadband provider, there is a big difference. Comcast offers 105 Mbps, while EPB customers can get up to 1000 Mbps service in their homes.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top