FCC: Fear Of Lawsuits Is Holding Up Net Neutrality

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How come I don't believe a word that comes out of this guy's mouth?

"The big dogs are going to sue regardless of what comes out," the Chairman told reporters today. "We need to make sure that we have sustainable rules, and that starts with making sure that we have addressed the multiplicity of issues that comes along and are likely to be raised." In other words, the FCC's plans for an open internet need to be strong enough weather the legal ire of ISPs opposed Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...
 
Well, Verizon and I think AT&T already made it clear they plan to sue if the new rules do anything they dont like, and I wouldnt expect Comcast to sit it out if it goes to court.

That right there would stop anything the FCC wants to do until after all the litigation is over, which could take years.
 
What are the ISPs going to sue over WHEN Net Neutrality wins?
That they should be able to fuck over the general public and impose unrealistic restrictions on an open network?

Seriously, shooting down Net Neutrality and creating a speed restricted internet is going to turn the United States into the laughing stock of the IT world.
 
Probably under the idea that it's too much control from the government, or that its anti competitive... they can take it many different ways.

To be honest, that's what scary about the whole thing. If they don't win one thing, they'll try to skew it with another reason and sue again.
 
These aholes keep pretending that net-neutrality isn't the status quo.

We have been operating under net-neutrality since the internet was created. Its only in recent years that we have seen ISPs go for money grabs where they agree not to compete with one another, and are unified in attempting to fight online competitors to their service packages (TV, on demand movies, DVR, etc) and double-charge to make money one way or another, while placing caps on how much data users can stream again to discourage streaming all media content online instead of through them.

Net-neutrality is just telling them to operate the way they have before this latest fiasco, not reinvent the wheel and totally change how the internet works. Jesus Christ!
 
Steve said:
How come I don't believe a word that comes out of this guy's mouth?
Click to expand...

This is perhaps the most important internet commerce ever with literally infinite amounts of money at stake. Inevitably it's headed for years and perhaps decades of litigation across the globe and will head to the highest courts.
 
Ducman69 said:
These aholes keep pretending that net-neutrality isn't the status quo.

We have been operating under net-neutrality since the internet was created. Its only in recent years that we have seen ISPs go for money grabs where they agree not to compete with one another, and are unified in attempting to fight online competitors to their service packages (TV, on demand movies, DVR, etc) and double-charge to make money one way or another, while placing caps on how much data users can stream again to discourage streaming all media content online instead of through them.

Net-neutrality is just telling them to operate the way they have before this latest fiasco, not reinvent the wheel and totally change how the internet works. Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Ducman69 said:
Net-neutrality is just telling them to operate the way they have before this latest fiasco, not reinvent the wheel and totally change how the internet works. Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...

But nothing was telling them how to operate in the manner before so to say that net neutrality is simply telling them to operate as they have historically is a HUGE deal. Remember, big bad government sticking its nose in where it hadn't before.
 
Replace fear with anticipation in this thread title.

Thank you. Much better. And far more accurate.

BTW what's with the stunning lack of even basic grammar in this (supposedly) Reuter's story?
 
Since when is having government intervention a viable solution? Everything the government touches, gets screwed up. There MUST be a better solution...
 
Soulslam said:
Since when is having government intervention a viable solution? Everything the government touches, gets screwed up. There MUST be a better solution...
Click to expand...

There are far more examples of how well government regulations work, than of things being "screwed up" by government. The ISPs have been regulating themselves for the most part and we can see how well that's been working. If it was up to the ISPs they would "screw" over the consumer in every way possible, as long as it results in more profits, and happier shareholders, and bigger CEO yachts.
 
Soulslam said:
Since when is having government intervention a viable solution? Everything the government touches, gets screwed up. There MUST be a better solution...
Click to expand...

Like with everything, too much or too little is when it gets bad. While I don't think there would be a massive increase in mass shootings and such if no government existed, I do believe it would be occurring a lot more if no gov't existed.
 
Soulslam said:
Since when is having government intervention a viable solution? Everything the government touches, gets screwed up. There MUST be a better solution...
Click to expand...

When you flip a light switch, does electricity turn your lights on, when you press the power button on your PC, does it boot up?
When you start up a crypto mining farm in your basement, do you have to upgrade your electric plan?

Wouldn't it be nice if the internet was just "there" in whatever reasonable capacity we required?
 
Leave it way it is. Why does somebody always have control over everything we get for news, info and anything for that matter. Always is. Follow the cash trail. Its not but getting truth yourself its turning blind eye so we can be dumb down. Every year its somebody trying to stick their thumb in the pie to get control. Give it up let freedom of info reign.
 
Soulslam said:
Since when is having government intervention a viable solution? Everything the government touches, gets screwed up. There MUST be a better solution...
Click to expand...

This. We don't need more government interference and control. Latest example of big government screw-up as usual.... Obama care. I rest my case.... One sixth of our economy destroyed and in chaos, with tons of everyday people now having multiple times the expense or no insurance at all because of it.
 
timta2 said:
There are far more examples of how well government regulations work, than of things being "screwed up" by government. The ISPs have been regulating themselves for the most part and we can see how well that's been working. If it was up to the ISPs they would "screw" over the consumer in every way possible, as long as it results in more profits, and happier shareholders, and bigger CEO yachts.
Click to expand...

Wrong, and the Internet has been working well already. This is more big government and liberal Corp stockholders wanting control for cronyism. Misleading tripe as usual...
 
virtualheretic said:
What are the ISPs going to sue over WHEN Net Neutrality wins?
That they should be able to fuck over the general public and impose unrealistic restrictions on an open network?
Click to expand...
Pretty much, yeah.

Since when is having government intervention a viable solution? Everything the government touches, gets screwed up. There MUST be a better solution...
Click to expand...
Well the problem is we have regulatory capture of most of the government these days. So it's run by large corporations lobbying for what they want essentially. So you remove that and... it's pretty much the same thing.
 
Soulslam said:
Since when is having government intervention a viable solution? Everything the government touches, gets screwed up. There MUST be a better solution...
Click to expand...

I don't know, requiring people to wear seat belts while driving has been a pretty good safety effort enacted by the government that works.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Wrong, and the Internet has been working well already. This is more big government and liberal Corp stockholders wanting control for cronyism. Misleading tripe as usual...
Click to expand...

Yup been working so well, that netflix customers suffered poor service due to Comcast "holding" out for a "hand out" from netflix. Huh same thing happened with AT&T customers. Don't worry your little head about Netflix offering to pay for hosting content servers on comcasts networks (or any network).

Working so well, most people only have a choice of 2 providers, and the ISPs trying to merger saying it won't hurt competition (because they don't compete in the first place). FYI I can get comcast (30-100 Mbps) or dsl (3-5Mbps). Those are my lovely "choices".

Working sooo well that comcast is STILL testing and using metered usage in a number of cities. Huh so Netflix pays them for their bandwidth... customers THEN also pay them to use Netflix via data usage limits... Huh wonder if Comcasts own streaming goes against their usage?... Give you the answer.. nope...

Q: Will watching XFINITY TV directly on my Xbox 360 use data from my XFINITY Internet monthly data usage allowance?

A: No; similar to traditional cable television service that is delivered to the set-top box, this content doesn’t count toward our data usage threshold. The Xbox 360 running our XFINITY TV app essentially acts as an additional cable box for your existing cable service, and our data usage threshold does not apply.
Click to expand...

Sounds like leaving the market to continue their management of services is going to work out well (for them).

We are going to see more situations like AMC vs Dish but on the internet. Won't that be great!
 
WE DON'T need this gov't getting involved. The Obama admin is one of the most corrupt, power grabbing, entities around. Keep your dirty, filthy, conniving hands off the internet Obunghole!
 
Some of you are really giving that Ted Cruz tweet a run for its money...
 
GoldenTiger said:
Wrong, and the Internet has been working well already. This is more big government and liberal Corp stockholders wanting control for cronyism. Misleading tripe as usual...
Click to expand...

Um you wouldn't even have the Internet the way it is now if it wasn't for the government. Who do you think has financed it's creation and expansion?

I hate government overreach as much as the next guy, but being completely oblivious to what the government does do and it's role is way worse.
 
Comcast and Verizon are going to get their way for 2 reasons...

#1 - They're going to lobby (aka bribe) their way to get it.

#2 - They've got enough of the American public fooled into thinking the evil gubment is going to take over the internet and fuck it all up if the FCC puts new rules into place so that Comcast and Verizon cant screw us all.

:rolleyes:

I'll give you that there's always a chance the government 'might' screw us, but I know for a friggin fact that Comcast and Verizon 'will' screw us, so I'm all for the FCC putting some new regs in place and then seeing where we go from there.

And I think more people still need to see this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
 
Despotes said:
WE DON'T need this gov't getting involved. The Obama admin is one of the most corrupt, power grabbing, entities around. Keep your dirty, filthy, conniving hands off the internet Obunghole!
Click to expand...
Satan thrashing.
 
Net neutrality is a pipe dream. Whatever the fed does you can guarantee it will be abused by politicians and beuracrats. I wish it wasn't true but it is.

The only true net neutrality is to stay out of it. Let it do what it does... So some big telecom comes in and starts holding bandwidth hostage... That is nothing but opportunity for their competitors. The biggest problem is lack of competition that is a hangover from too much govt control of the television and telecom imdustries in the first place.
 
docmal said:
Net neutrality is a pipe dream. Whatever the fed does you can guarantee it will be abused by politicians and beuracrats. I wish it wasn't true but it is.

The only true net neutrality is to stay out of it. Let it do what it does... So some big telecom comes in and starts holding bandwidth hostage... That is nothing but opportunity for their competitors. The biggest problem is lack of competition that is a hangover from too much govt control of the television and telecom imdustries in the first place.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We wouldn't be having this whole net neutrality conversation if the government would just break up and prevent these monopolies from existing so that competition can do its thing...
 
what I don't understand is how people don't see this for what it is: Ptolemy's circles within circles

the entire system (corporatism) is so convoluted it takes more and more regulation just to make it function the way a free market would.

The premise with net neutrality is that corporations are greedy and will abuse the system at the expense of the consumer... but government is benevolent and won't? How could any sane person believe that bureaucracy is accountable to the voters, when ALL the evidence is to the contrary?
 
Lol competitors. You guys crack me up. The competition is super fierce :rolleyes:. Some of us get to choose between overpriced crap and crap that is overpriced, and many don't even get that choice. You're fooling yourselves.
 
maverikv said:
Lol competitors. You guys crack me up. The competition is super fierce :rolleyes:. Some of us get to choose between overpriced crap and crap that is overpriced, and many don't even get that choice. You're fooling yourselves.
Click to expand...

If competition were allowed to exist... i don't think anyone saying there is currently competition, but there SHOULD be competition and there would be if these monopolies weren't allowed to exist.
 
chockomonkey said:
If competition were allowed to exist... i don't think anyone saying there is currently competition, but there SHOULD be competition and there would be if these monopolies weren't allowed to exist.
Click to expand...

You mean like by having the government provide and maintain the infrastructure and have the ISPs compete on service, delivery to door, and price?
 
maverikv said:
You mean like by having the government provide and maintain the infrastructure and have the ISPs compete on service, delivery to door, and price?
Click to expand...

how is replacing one pseudo monopoly with a complete monopoly a solution?
 
maverikv said:
You mean like by having the government provide and maintain the infrastructure and have the ISPs compete on service, delivery to door, and price?
Click to expand...

spintroniX said:
how is replacing one pseudo monopoly with a complete monopoly a solution?
Click to expand...

This was my first thought. The gov shouldn't be a gatekeeper either. Any company should be able to lay down lines and provide service.
 
chockomonkey said:
This was my first thought. The gov shouldn't be a gatekeeper either. Any company should be able to lay down lines and provide service.
Click to expand...

The barriers to entry are too high for that. You either get monopolies or you have government control. No mom and pop is going to open up and lay fiber optic cable across thousands of miles of american land.
 
maverikv said:
The barriers to entry are too high for that. You either get monopolies or you have government control. No mom and pop is going to open up and lay fiber optic cable across thousands of miles of american land.
Click to expand...
IMO it should be noted this exact same inability (i.e. to find any third option) has always been the case with new utilities in our country. It's specifically why the Communications Act of 1934 was written and passed.

As with our landline phone network, our two choices for the internet are to regulate it as a utility, or lose it to greed. No third option.
 
Internet should be treated like a utility and we really should get the government more involved building the backbone similar to our interstate system, we are falling so far behind the world because companies like Verizon have no incentive to build infrastructure when they are jamming you up for data by the GB. Why would they bother investing in fiber and DSL to your house when they can slap up some more cell towers for a higher profit margin?

I am in Kuwait right now and am embarrassed because the internet plan I pay for right now would cost me twice as much in the U.S.
 
To clarify further with the interstate comparison, interstates made the U.S. great because of the trading of goods it enabled.

Theses companies against net neutrality see the internet not as a vessel for trading but as the actual profit mechanism. What we should be concerned with is the trading and information flowing over the internet not related to the internet itself. We need to build it wide and free, not set up toll booths everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top