FCC Chief to Congress: Leave Net Neutrality Alone

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Whether you are for or against net neutrality, the one thing that remains the same is that everything sucks when the government gets involved.

Genachowski will offer an unyielding, point-by-point defense of the FCC's 3-2 vote, which fell along party lines, saying that it's already increased investment and that relying on antitrust laws to police errant behavior would be "problematic" and "ill-suited to the fast-changing nature of Internet technology."
Click to expand...
 
Here is who we find out who has been bought and who has not.
 
I dont know exactly how bribery (lobbying) works on your side of the planet but I'm assuming the FCC is slightly less in the pocket of big business than congress is. The FCC seems to at least try to think of customers sometimes. Trying to do the right thing seems better than doing whatever the highest bidder wants.
 
So if I am reading this right, the FCC board is of a Democrat majority, and they voted to extend net nuetrality and disallow ISPs to snoop clients packets.
The Republican controlled house overrulled the FCC and said, "We're doing away with net neutrality all together."
Now the chairman of the FCC is going to the house to say: "More laws about how to enact anti-trust regulations are going to be about as effective as gun control laws."

Is that summary correct?
 
Pretty much rihno13. I think he is at least smart and realizes that sinking 100's of millions or billions more dollars into this isn't going to do anything.
 
Well it seems like ultimately Congress has to get involved ever since the FCC got shut down in the courts regarding some of these regulations.

So one way or the other, if the FCC is going to regulate more in this area, they will need the backing of laws passed by Congress to give it teeth. Otherwise, I dont see how these will be more than mere 'suggestions' from the FCC.

This whole net neutrality issue is so convaluted now. whatever the initial intentions were, its now just a mess (which isnt suprising given that its the government handling it all). There is far too much fine print here to trust the current rules being passed.

Id like to see someone actually try and create a straightforward approach that doesnt require hundreds of pages.
 
Yes, thank you so much politicians for allowing the ISP's to create a tiered system of limits, throttling, and atrocious prices.
 
Steve said:
Whether you are for or against net neutrality, the one thing that remains the same is that everything sucks when the government involved.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree Steve. I WANT government to guarantee Net Neutrality. I don't trust the ISPs, period. Big Business has repeatedly shown it will screw the consumer at every opportunity if allowed to do so.

Sorry if that's upsets your libertarian world view, but that's my belief
 
qdemn7 said:
Totally disagree Steve. I WANT government to guarantee Net Neutrality. I don't trust the ISPs, period. Big Business has repeatedly shown it will screw the consumer at every opportunity if allowed to do so.

Sorry if that's upsets your libertarian world view, but that's my belief
Click to expand...

Why should we trust the government, though?
 
Big Business has repeatedly shown it will screw the consumer at every opportunity if allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true.

Big Business has repeatedly shown it do whatever it can (legally, or in some cases illegally) to maximize profits. If this means screwing consumers they will have no qualms about doing it. If the end result benefits consumers, they will do that too. Quite frankly, the only thing they really make their decisions off of is making the most money possible, who they hurt or help in the process is not important.
 
Choice 1: Big Business

Choice 2: Big Brother Government.

Can I choose "none of the above" ?
 
Q-BZ said:
Choice 1: Big Business

Choice 2: Big Brother Government.

Can I choose "none of the above" ?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, no, it doesn't seem so, any power vacuum will just end up filled by something even worse. The best you can do is pit them against each other in a way that's beneficial to the rest of us.
 
Q-BZ said:
Why should we trust the government, though?
Click to expand...
Because the Constitution, the BOR, the USC and the Courts, provide checks and balances against government intrusion into our lives, that's why.

You want to live in a place with no government I suggest you move to Somalia.
 
Soralis said:
Unfortunately, no, it doesn't seem so, any power vacuum will just end up filled by something even worse. The best you can do is pit them against each other in a way that's beneficial to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

True.






qdemn7 said:
Because the Constitution, the BOR, the USC and the Courts, provide checks and balances against government intrusion into our lives, that's why.
Click to expand...

They could stand to do a lot better job, especially against a government that pretty clearly doesn't give much of a damn about the Constitution.

You want to live in a place with no government I suggest you move to Somalia.
Click to expand...

Your words, not mine.
 
qdemn7 said:
Because the Constitution, the BOR, the USC and the Courts, provide checks and balances against government intrusion into our lives, that's why.

You want to live in a place with no government I suggest you move to Somalia.
Click to expand...

Delusional much . . .

In theory that us how government works on paper the reality is they will do everything and anything to create dependence on the government to keep their power. Especially when you have certain politicians in politics for 40-50 years, the system wasn't designed for people to make a career of dictating peoples rights.

As it stands Net Neutrality is a joke and they did nothing about the wireless carriers such as your phone companies to perhaps make them actually do their jobs. So it is pointless regardless of it's original intentions it's something atm that is better not being enacted than enacting something half arsed.
 
The old net neutrality is about providers being content neutral and just moving the packets.

Current net neutrality is NOT this and, if enacted to the degree that the administration desires, it would allow the us gov to influence content. Not just one form of media over another, but actual content - ie: speech.

Even if you dont mind, dont care or dont belive that, the FCC is over reaching and congress should reign them in and legislate, not abdicate control to unaccountable regulators with statist sympathies.
 
DoubleTap said:
Current net neutrality is NOT this and, if enacted to the degree that the administration desires, it would allow the us gov to influence content. Not just one form of media over another, but actual content - ie: speech.
Click to expand...
[citation needed]
 
If they want to whack around NetNeutering, let's actually start filing anti-trust complaints against these ISPs who own large regions and do everything they can to hinder competition.

Open competition is the best law.
 
der_jackal said:
If they want to whack around NetNeutering, let's actually start filing anti-trust complaints against these ISPs who own large regions and do everything they can to hinder competition.
Open competition is the best law.
Click to expand...
Unregulated competition leads to the very monopolies you're complaining about, that threaten the neutrality of the internet with the very neutering you speak of.
 
Kill Net Neutrality and kill make laws banning local monopolies, then the consumer wins and government and big business lose.
 
kubla_khan said:
Unregulated competition leads to the very monopolies you're complaining about, that threaten the neutrality of the internet with the very neutering you speak of.
Click to expand...

Open market monopolies are created when one competitor produces a product which stands out better than the rest or they consume their opposition.

These aren't monopolies created by open market competition. These are monopolies created by government. Qwest (or what ever they are called now) can't service my area becuase the local government won't allow them. Verizon couldn't service downtown Seattle competing with the providers because the local government wouldn't allow them.

Cell phones are unregulated, it's an open market for service providers. There are still regional carriers, there are still three main nationwide competitors. Sure there's a chance there will be one carrier stading in a few years, but artificially creating service monopolies by regulation is far worse for consumers.

It took Verizon two years to get permission to roll out FiOS internet in my area. And another two years to roll out TV in my area. But they couldn't roll it out FiOS service to all their coverage areas up here because those regional governments wouldn't allow it or were getting pushback from Comcast saying it would be bad. Or if they did actually get permission, it was only internet and not TV.
 
The argument comes down to "Who do you want to spit on your internet." Big Business that only cares about getting more money out of your pocket, or the Government, which is only influence by Big Business. It's a shit sandwich no matter if its cut in half or left in one piece. You will be forced to eat it eventually.
 
Q-BZ said:
Choice 1: Big Business

Choice 2: Big Brother Government.

Can I choose "none of the above" ?
Click to expand...

Yup, jump out of the hamster wheel, move to the country, live off the land as much as possible. Whats the internet? I consider it daily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top