Battle for the Internet's Future

[ob1]

Also, how do we know the FCC is not being run by an ex-lobbyist for the cable companies, whose sole thought process and actions over the last two decades have been to increase their control and profit margins? I mean, we just don't know...

 

[lcpiper]

Nysmo, I get what you are saying and that you didn't realize that I was taking your comment very literally and asking an honest straight up question in that vein.

I also understand your last statement and ob1's. But this topic brings to the forefront just how easy it really is to enlist support from your enemies. Anyone could be battleforthenet.com and they may not want our personal information for the reason they state. Perhaps they are targeting their opponents to try and change our minds. Maybe the page should have said "Sign up here to be bombarded by email on blah blah blah". Maybe someone is just trolling for a new mailing list. Maybe we just signed up in support of something that we didn't know we support.

But if the link was www.eff.org/battleforthenet.aspx I would be less concerned hey. But it's not .org is it, it's .com and how often are public service organizations signed up as commercial versus organization?

Just saying.

 

[mesyn191]

How does any of us know who battleforthenet.com really is?

They have plenty of contact information on their site for you to look at. Its at the bottom of their page. If you're asking questions like this that means you didn't even try to find out anything at all and are arguing from assumptions only.

When someone only goes off their assumptions and doesn't put in any, or hardly any at least, effort to understand what they're questioning....well what do you think that says about their ability to use their critical thinking skills? And their biases as well?

What I do know is that they want my Full Name, Email Address, Home Address, and that I see no Privacy Statement or usage statement other than they say they are going to send it all to the FCC and that the FCC "may post it in a searchable database".

There is a clickable privacy policy in smaller font, but still quite readable size, right below the section where you enter in your information. Its not buried in some sub-menu or a different section of the site.

You gotta spend more than a second or 2 glancing at things next time. Otherwise you only end up parsing things in a half assed manner to confirm whatever biases you have.

 

[lcpiper]

They have plenty of contact information on their site for you to look at. Its at the bottom of their page. If you're asking questions like this that means you didn't even try to find out anything at all and are arguing from assumptions only.

.

mesyn191, none of those links are any more informative then the original. Anyone can post a phone number to whatever phone. If you are saying that because I didn't try and use them to find out more then you are correct, but miss the point entirely. Let's say I call and they give me whatever pat response and I am unsatisfied or they even come out and volunteer that they are actually supporting say, the RIAA, whoever. It doesn't change this simple fact that the greatest number of people did exactly what some here probably did and just filled out the online form and sent them their personal information.

You say

If you're asking questions like this that means you didn't even try to find out anything at all and are arguing from assumptions only.

You are the one making assumptions. How do you know I didn't call every number and click all the links and got to know one and received no new information? Right or wrong, that is entirely an assumption on your part.

I will admit though that I read that statement on the main page , but I did not identify that the "Privacy Policy" wording was a link to additional information. Regardless, my argument is not specific to this issue and it's broader in nature. And after all the digging for information and posting of quotes and links that I do, you should not be accusing me of laziness. I work as hard as any poster on this site to back up what I say and post credible sources so that others don't have to dig around trying to see why I say what I say.

 

[mesyn191]

mesyn191, none of those links are any more informative then the original.

They give plenty of information about the people involved. If you want to pretend none of that matters then you're just being obstinante and/or unreasonable. If you want to say that somehow all of it is faked because you haven't verified its correct then that is up to you to demonstrate there is a conspiracy of sorts going on there and/or that it is faked information. You can't reasonably assume its faked at this point.

It doesn't change this simple fact that the greatest number of people did exactly what some here probably did and just filled out the online form and sent them their personal information.

And the issue with that is exactly what again? What problem do you have with their policy on that? And they are in effect signing a petition so some degree of personal information is going to be required you know.

How do you know I didn't call every number and click all the links and got to know one and received no new information?

Because if you had any real information showing there was some shady stuff going on you would've posted it.

You got nothing though so you're just making baseless insinuations, which even you must realize on some level is weak as heck, that somehow something shady must be going on with that advocacy group. Its you're assumption, with absolutely zero supporting information, that they must be somehow a paid front or conspiracy of sorts to attack the ISP's that gives you away.

 

[nightfly]

I"m sure that our illustrious conservative republican congress, senate and president will look out for the best interests of the voters who put them into office when it comes to net neutrality. Nothing to worry about. They're all honest, good, god fearing people, who always do the right thing. At least, that's what I keep reading here, anyway.

 

[lcpiper]

They give plenty of information about the people involved. If you want to pretend none of that matters then you're just being obstinante and/or unreasonable. If you want to say that somehow all of it is faked because you haven't verified its correct then that is up to you to demonstrate there is a conspiracy of sorts going on there and/or that it is faked information. You can't reasonably assume its faked at this point.
.

I hate arguing with you because I can not use a specific example to discuss a general topic because you will not let go of the specific example and address the general topic. A dog with a bone that you refuse to let go of.

Your right all the way.

I'm wrong.

No one will every use a public outcry for support in order to misrepresent that support. No one will ever create a "honey pot" to sucker people into giving up their information under the guise of a popular cause.

 

[Parja]

Nothing good will come of more government meddling in the affairs of business.

That it's a sector of business that's already been handed regional monopolies due to government meddling just muddies the waters.

 

[lcpiper]

I"m sure that our illustrious conservative republican congress, senate and president will look out for the best interests of the voters who put them into office when it comes to net neutrality. Nothing to worry about. They're all honest, good, god fearing people, who always do the right thing. At least, that's what I keep reading here, anyway.

I judge people by what they do, not by what they might do or haven't done yet.

In my view, the FCC never should have tried to grab regulatory control by classifying broadband as a utility. They claim they did it to prevent against potential abuses but there was no reason that the FTC could not have addressed the same issues and done so from a much stronger regulatory position. Furthermore, because the FCC has a more limited reach it is incapable to applying their rules acrossed the entire business sector as the FTC can.

It was a bad move made by the wrong people for probably good reasons. The first step in correcting this is undoing what was done.

Then you can look at doing it the right way.

It sounds like you equate conservative with bad. Do you also equate conservative with religious zealot, or homophobe, or ... ?

Is there any room in your mind for a conservative who's not a big business grubbing whatever it is you think conservative means?

 

[cjcox]

Uh... why must we start a war when effectively nothing has happened. I get it. Some really really really poor "whatevers" were put in place to try to regulate a "mailbox" like a "car". Now, some that's nonsense has been removed because it was utter nonsense. Not that the general ideas were nonsense, merely the implementation (if you can call it that, which you really can't)... again, you can't wave a magic wand of "I don't want to do the work" and take rules for a car and apply them to a mailbox, even if in your dear dear heart, it seems to make sense somehow.

So rather than lighting torches and storming the castle, maybe now's a good time to figure out the right answer the problem. Sure, it may mean regulating business, but perhaps this time with something that's actually doable instead of nonsense.

Flame away... but you're wrong to do so. I'm on your side (except for the torch and kill thing)... just want to see this done right. Pleasing the masses by doing something stupid doesn't really address fixing the actual issues.

I get it, Trump's the devil, and he's coming to kill your grandmother or worse, you're cat.... but maybe that's not true (maybe)? Dare I say it, maybe you're wrong...

Does anyone really really want to work toward an actual solution? I have this strange feeling people won't be satisfied until everyone's dead... and that's a shame.

 

[lcpiper]

Nothing good will come of more government meddling in the affairs of business.

That it's a sector of business that's already been handed regional monopolies due to government meddling just muddies the waters.

You know, if I was running a communications company and I built communications infrastructure. I am pretty sure that as I built out my infrastructure that I would want all the dots connected. So I would think that after ten years of investment and building, the area that I ran my infrastructure, and buried my cable, and sold drops to my backbone, it would start to look like a regional thing. And that if I offered solid competitive service and was beating my competition, that at some point it might look pretty damn well like I had a monopoly.

I can see how some people would want the government to get involved in such things and as such, others would see it as meddling. I also suppose some people would start to think that it was the government's meddling that allowed the monopoly to exist.

But I think this was the only way it could happen and that this is just the way it all was going to turn out. The only way it would have been different was if the government had built the infrastructure and leased access to business. But that would have been a much more literal interpretation of the term "Information Super Highway".

Besides, I've seen how cost efficient government can be when it comes to building things. I'm not sure this would have been a better way to go.

 

[mesyn191]

No one will every use a public outcry for support in order to misrepresent that support. No one will ever create a "honey pot" to sucker people into giving up their information under the guise of a popular cause.

That stuff does happen but you can't reasonably go assuming that it will always be true for any issue you happen to disagree with.

There are lots of people who have real issues with the way ISP's do things and throw their weight around and its not at all surprising that some of them would try to form a advocacy group to address that in ways you might not necessary agree with. There is nothing particularly far fetched or unusual about them.

 

[aaronspink]

I judge people by what they do, not by what they might do or haven't done yet.

In my view, the FCC never should have tried to grab regulatory control by classifying broadband as a utility. They claim they did it to prevent against potential abuses but there was no reason that the FTC could not have addressed the same issues and done so from a much stronger regulatory position. Furthermore, because the FCC has a more limited reach it is incapable to applying their rules acrossed the entire business sector as the FTC can.

Lol, the FCC was just correcting the previous mistakes it made when it declassified large portions of the internet from Title II and the result was massive reduction in consumer options and increased prices. FCC has ALWAYS had regulatory control and without an act of congress will always have regulatory control of the internet. It literally is part of their mandate. And no the FTC is not equipped from a legal perspective to handle much of anything to do with the internet.

It was a bad move made by the wrong people for probably good reasons. The first step in correcting this is undoing what was done.

No the first step if you don't like what is there now is to propose another solution, not remove the current solution without a replacement. Pai doesn't want another solution and neither does the GOP leadership, they want to allow the ISP to do whatever they want and screw as many of their customers as they want. Neither Pai nor the GOP have proposed any solution to what the FCC Title II rule changes were trying accomplish. And there are numerous examples of why NN is required from a consumer perspective.

Is there any room in your mind for a conservative who's not a big business grubbing whatever it is you think conservative means?

Sure, wake me up when they are in control of the GOP. Until then, I'll deal with the reality of what actually is.

 

[Blakestr]

The only way it would have been different was if the government had built the infrastructure and leased access to business.

Originally, didn't the government give like 80-100 billion to help create the actual infrastructure?

 

[lcpiper]

That stuff does happen but you can't reasonably go assuming that it will always be true for any issue you happen to disagree with...............

Where do you get off saying what I disagree with?

I never said I disagree with net neutrality or is it something else you are referencing?.

 

[lcpiper]

Originally, didn't the government give like 80-100 billion to help create the actual infrastructure?

I can't say, you may be correct, but a grant is not the same as government owned and leased/operated.

 

[lcpiper]

[QUOTE="aaronspink, post: 1043061427, member: 81181"............. And no the FTC is not equipped from a legal perspective to handle much of anything to do with the internet................[/QUOTE]

Didn't look at any of the hundreds of court cases where the FTC has taken business to court over unfair business practices on internet related services and such.

When DLink's routers came up unsecure and all easily hackable, it was the FTC that took DLink to court and made DLink pay for their fuck ups.

You are so completely wrong it's ridiculous. The FCC never even actually did anything regarding any of their new rules since title II Classification. Everything that has been done regarding business practices and the internet was done because of FTC rules.

The only thing the FCC has ever regulated regarding broadband service and the internet has been related specifically to transmissions equipment and not privacy or fair business practices. You should go back and read my link earlier and look at the things that the FTC is responsible for actually doing for us before you try and make such claims.

 

[lcpiper]

............No the first step if you don't like what is there now is to propose another solution, not remove the current solution without a replacement..........

Oh, don't do what the FCC did you mean.

Reclassify broadband as a utility, then have to create new regulation to do what they felt wasn't being done, by the FTC.